Book contents
- Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use
- Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Understanding Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory
- 3 Redefining Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics
- 4 Understanding Lexemes
- 5 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2023
Book contents
- Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use
- Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Understanding Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory
- 3 Redefining Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics
- 4 Understanding Lexemes
- 5 Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Linguistic Knowledge and Language UseBridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory, pp. 187 - 214Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten and Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23: 275–290.Google Scholar
Aït-Kaci, Hassan. 1984. A lattice-theoretic approach to computation based on a calculus of partially ordered type structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian and Heny, Frank W.. 1975. An introduction to the principles of transformational syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Kachina, Pereira, Francisco, Botvinick, Mathew and Adele E., Goldberg. 2012. Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language 123: 174–182.Google Scholar
Allott, Nicholas. 2002. Relevance and rationality. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 69–82.Google Scholar
Allott, Nicholas. 2013. Relevance Theory. In Capone, Alessandro, Piparo, Franco Lo and Carapezza, Marco (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, 57–98. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Allott, Nicholas. 2017. Metarepresentation. In Barron, Anne, Yueguo, Gu and Steen, Gerard (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of pragmatics, 295–309. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Allott, Nicholas. 2020. Relevance theory [annotated bibliography]. In Aronoff, Mark (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in linguistics. [Online Resource]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allott, Nicholas and Textor, Mark. 2012. Lexical pragmatic adjustment and the nature of ad hoc concepts. International Review of Pragmatics 4 (2): 185–208.Google Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 2003. Meaning potential and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René and Taylor, John R. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 29–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2000. The role of the pragmatic marker like in utterance interpretation. In Andersen, Gisle and Fretheim, Thorstein (Eds.), Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude, 17–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle and Thorstein, Fretheim. 2000. Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal and Neal, Snider. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62 (1): 67–82.Google Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2008. Intention, common ground and the availability of semantic content: A relevance-theoretic perspective. In Istvan, Kecskes and Jacob, Mey (Eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 105–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2012. On encoded lexical meaning: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Humana Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies 23: 17–35.Google Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2022. Ostension and the communicative function of natural language. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 46–54.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, Angeliki, Canakis, Costas and Cornillie, Bert. 2006. Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny and Geert, Booij. 2016. Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics 54: 617–637.Google Scholar
auf der Straße, Alexander. 2017. Constructions in use. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994a. Semantic slack: What is said and more. In Savas L., Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Foundations of speech act theory, 267–291. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bardzokas, Valandis. 2023. Narrowed and broadened concepts: A contribution to current issues and future directions. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 2 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon. 1989. The autistic child’s theory of mind: A case of specific developmental delay. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 30: 285–297.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon. 1994. How to build a baby that can read minds: Cognitive mechanisms in mindreading. Current Psychology of Cognition 13 (5): 513–552.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon. 1995. Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, Simon, Leslie, Alan M. and Frith, Uta. 1985. Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition 21: 37–46.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1985. Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 11: 629–654.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1987. The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Ulric, Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development, 101–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1989. Intra-concept similarity and its implications for inter-concept similarity. In Stella, Vosniadou and Ortony, Andrew (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning, 76–121. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1990. On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in category representation. In Thomas, K. Srull and Wyer, Robert S. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition, volume III: Content and process specificity in the effects of prior experiences, 61–88. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992a. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Lehrer, Adrienne and Kittay, Eva F. (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992b. Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1993. Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, Alan F., Gathercole, Susan E., Conway, Martin A. and Morris, Peter E. (Eds.), Theories of memory, 29–101. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–609.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2000. Concepts: Structure. In Kazdin, Alan E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, vol. 2, 245–248. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2012. The human conceptual system. In Spivey, Michael J., McRae, Ken and Joanisse, Marc (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics, 239–258. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2016. Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Coello, Yann and Fischer, Martin H. (Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition (vol. 1): Perceptual and emotional embodiment, 11–37. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W., Wenchi Yeh, Barbara J. Luka, Karen L. Olseth, Mix, Kelly S. and Ling-Ling, Wu. 1993. Concepts and meaning. In Beals, Katherine, Cooke, Gina, Kathman, David, Kita, Sotaro, McCullough, Karl-Eric and Testen, David (Eds.), Chicago Linguistics Society (29): Papers from the parasession on conceptual representations, 23–61. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1984. Norms, tolerance, lexical change, and context-dependent meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 367–393.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth and Goodman, Judith C.. 1997. On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia, and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 12: 507–586.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth and Goodman, Judith C.. 1999. On the emergence of grammar from the lexicon. In MacWhinney, Brian (Ed.), The emergence of language, 29–79. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beck, Sara Donnell. 2020. Native and non-native idiom processing: Same difference. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2009. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47: 383–411.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M.L. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 640–651.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M.L. and Valian, Virginia V.. 2008. Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 97–113.Google Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, José Luis. 1996. Los Verbos Modales Ingleses: Estudio Semántico-Pragmático. Cadiz: Cadiz University, Servicio de Publicaciones.Google Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, José Luis. 1998. Relevance and modality. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 11: 3–22.Google Scholar
Berbeira Gardón, José Luis. 2006. On the semantics and pragmatics of will. In Marta, Carretero, Laura Hidalgo, Downing, Julia, Lavid, Elena Martinez, Caro, Joanne, Neff, Soledad Perez de, Ayala and Esther, Sanchez-Pardo (Eds.), A pleasure of life in words: A Festschrift for Angela Downing, vol. 1, 445–465. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin. 2016. Embodiment, simulation and meaning. In Riemer, Nick (Ed.), Routledge handbook of semantics, 142–157. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin and Wheeler, Kathryn. 2010. Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language 112 (3): 150–158.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2018. Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): Linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66 (3): 277–293.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele. 2009. Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2002. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Philosophical Perspectives 16: 105–134.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Bianchi, Claudia (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction, 101–131. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1990. Constraints on interpretation. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 363–370. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2011. Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49 (6): 1271–1303.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2021. Construction grammar and frame semantics. In Wen, Xu and Taylor, John R. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 43–77. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Samuel A. and Bell, Susan M.. 1973. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition 1: 343–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2018. The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert and Audring, Jenny. 2017. Construction morphology and the parallel architecture of grammar. Cognitive Science 41: 277–302.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K. and Goldberg, Adele 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, Jeremy K., Gottschalk, Erin A. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2009. Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning 93: 418–429.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16: 9–43.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88 (1): 1–44.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1998. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 2000. Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2005. Robyn Carston on semantics, pragmatics, and “encoding.” Journal of Linguistics 41: 389–407.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2007. Varieties of semantics and encoding: Negation, narrowing/ loosening and numericals. In Burton-Roberts, Noel (Ed.), Pragmatics, 90–114. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Busso, Lucia. 2020. Constructional creativity in a Romance language: Valency coercion in Italian. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 17–29.Google Scholar
Busso, Lucia, Perek, Florent and Lenci, Alessandro. 2021. Constructional associations trump lexical associations in processing valency coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 32 (2): 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1998. The emergent lexicon. In Gruber, M. Catherine, Higgins, Derrick, Olson, Kenneth S. and Wysocki, Tamra (Eds.), Papers from the thirty-fourth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 421–435. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernie. 2005. Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions Online 1 (7): 1–28.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2014. Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy and Rutten, Gijsbert (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 251–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2017. What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In Depraetere, Ilse and Salkie, Raphael (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 115–151. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. To appear. Can Construction Grammar be proven wrong? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert and Depraetere, Ilse. 2016. Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames 8 (1): 7–39.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, Depraetere, Ilse and Lesuisse, Mégane. 2019. The necessity modals have to, must, need to and should: Using n-grams to help identify common and distinct semantic and pragmatic aspects. Constructions and Frames 11 (2): 220–243.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, Dugas, Edwige and Tobin, Vera. 2015. An afterthought on let alone. Journal of Pragmatics 80: 70–85.Google Scholar
Carruthers, Peter and Smith, Peter K.. 1996. Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, Ruth (Ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted in Steven Davis (Ed.) (1991), Pragmatics: A reader, 33–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1997a. Relevance-theoretic pragmatics and modularity. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 29–53.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1997b. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed? Linguistische Berichte 8: 103–127.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 1999. The semantics/pragmatics distinction: A view from Relevance Theory. In Turner, Ken P. (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, 85–125. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2000. The relationship between generative grammar and (relevance-theoretic) pragmatics. Language and Communication 20: 87–103.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002a. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002b. Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language 17: 127–148.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. Explicature and semantics. In Davis, Steven and Gillon, Brendan (Eds.), Semantics: A reader, 817–845. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2006. Modularity. In Brown, Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 215–217. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2007. How many pragmatic systems are there? In Frápolli, Maria J. (Ed.), Saying, meaning and referring: Essays on François Recanati’s philosophy of language, 18–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2009. The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics 1: 35–62.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Soria, Belén and Romero, Esther (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics, 217–285. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2012. Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29: 607–623.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Penco, Carlo and Domaneschi, Filippo (Eds.), What is said and what is not, 175–203. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2016a. Linguistic conventions and the role of pragmatics. Mind & Language 31 (5): 612–624.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2019. Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, Kate, Clark, Billy and Carston, Robyn (Eds.), Relevance, pragmatics and interpretation, 150–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2021. Polysemy: Pragmatics and sense conventions. Mind & Language 36 (1): 108–133.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2022. Syntactic structures and pragmatic meanings. Synthese 200 (6): 1–28.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn and Hall, Alison. 2012. Implicature and explicature. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (Ed.), Cognitive pragmatics, 47–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Bock, Kathryn, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2003. Do thematic roles leave traces in their places? Cognition 90 (1): 29–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2003. Reply to Ludlow. In Antony, Louise M. and Hornstein, Norbert (Eds.), Chomsky and his critics, 287–295. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Churchland, Patricia S. 1986. Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 1991. Relevance Theory and the semantics of non-declaratives. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2007. Blazing a trail: Moving from natural to linguistic meaning in accounting for the tones of English. In Nilsen, Randi A., Amfo, Nana A. A. and Borthen, Kaja (Eds.), Interpreting utterances: Pragmatics and its interfaces. Essays in honour of Thorstein Fretheim, 69–81. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2012. The relevance of tones: Prosodic meanings in utterance interpretation and in relevance theory. The Linguistic Review 29 (4): 643–661.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2013b. Procedures and prosody: Understanding weak communication. In Liedtke, Frank and Schulze, Cornelia (Eds.), Beyond the words: Content, context and inference, 151–182. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2017. Drawing things together: Concluding remarks. In Depraetere, Ilse and Salkie, Raphael (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 343–354. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Clark, Billy. 2018. Cognitive pragmatics: Relevance-theoretic methodology. In Jucker, Andreas H., Schneider, Klaus P. and Bublitz, Wolfram (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 185–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2009. First language acquisition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Neal J. and Squire, Larry R.. 1980. Preserved learning and retention of pattern analyzing skill in amnesia: Dissociation of knowing how and knowing that. Science 210: 207–210.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Joel, Olofsson. 2018a. Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Olofsson, Joel. 2018b. Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. In Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Olofsson, Joel (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cowie, Fiona. 1998. Mad dog nativism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 227–253.Google Scholar
Cowie, Fiona. 1999. What’s within? Nativism reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. To appear. Philosophical reflections on the future of construction grammar. Constructions and Frames.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Alan Cruse, D.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Sutton, Logan. 2017. Construction grammar and lexicography. In Hanks, Patrick and de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice (Eds.), International handbook of modern lexis and lexicography. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Curcó, Carmen. 2011. On the status of procedural meaning in natural language. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 33–54. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve. 2014. Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Reality without reference. In Davidson, Donald (Ed.), Inquiries into truth and interpretation, 215–225. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2004. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at www.english-corpora.org/bnc/.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2016. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20 countries, updated every day. Available online at www.english-corpora.org/now/.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas. 1997. The number sense: How mathematical knowledge is embedded in our brains. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2010. Some observations on the meaning of modals. In Cappelle, Bert and Wada, Naoaki (Eds.), Distinctions in English grammar, offered to Renaat Declerck, 72–91. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 2014. Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 160–177.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 2000. Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar conference. Berkeley, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 2011. Mismatches and coercion. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus and Portner, Paul (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 574–597. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25: 108–127.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 347–363. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 296–321. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, Milin, Petar, Medimorec, Srdan and Borowski, Maciej. 2022. Behavioral signatures of memory resources for language: Looking beyond the lexicon/grammar divide. Cognitive Science 46 (11): e13206.Google Scholar
Eichenbaum, Howard. 2002. The cognitive neuroscience of memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eigsti, Inge-Marie, Bennetto, Loisa and Dadlani, Mamta B.. 2007. Beyond pragmatics: Morphosyntactic development in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37: 1007–1023.Google Scholar
Eigsti, Inge-Marie, de Marchena, Ashley B., Schuh, Jillian M. and Kelley, Elizabeth. 2011. Language acquisition in autism spectrum disorders: A developmental review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 5 (2): 681–691.Google Scholar
Eizaga Rebollar, Bárbara. 2009. Letting the cat out of the bag: On idiom use and representation. In Alm-Arvius, Christina, Johannesson, Nils-Lennart and Minugh, David C. (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm metaphor festival. Stockholm Studies in English, 139–153. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 143–188.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey, Elizabeth, Bates, Mark H., Johnson, Annette, Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico, Parisi and Kim, Plunkett. 1996. Re-thinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Erviti, Aneider I. 2017. An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30 (1): 210–239.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2017. Notes for a restrictive theory of procedural meaning. In Giora, Rachel and Haugh, Michael (Eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 79–95. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. and Leonetti, Manuel. 2000. Categorías funcionales y semántica procedimental. In Hernández, Marcos M., Padrón, Dolores del Pino García, Díaz, Dolores Corbella, José Corrales Zumbado, Cristóbal, Francisco, José Cortés Rodrígez, , et al. (Eds.), Cien años de investigación semántica: De Michel Bréal a la actualidad, vol. I, 363–378. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Leonetti, Manuel. 2002. Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics, 159–179. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria and Leonetti, Manuel. 2011. The rigidity of procedural meaning. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 81–102. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife. 2011. Introduction: Procedural meaning. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, xvii–xlv. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (4): 491–534.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan and Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, Bergen, Benjamin K. and Zinken, Jörg. 2007. The cognitive linguistics enterprise: An overview. In Evans, Vyvyan, Bergen, Benjain K. and Zinken, Jörg (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader, 1–60. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Falkum, Ingrid L. 2011. The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Falkum, Ingrid L. 2015. The how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic account. Lingua 157: 83–99.Google Scholar
Fantl, Jeremy. 2017. Knowledge how. In Zalta, Edward N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2017 Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/knowledge-how/ (last accessed: May 31, 2023).Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2003. Polysemy and conceptual blending. In Nerlich, Brigitte, Todd, Zazie, Herman, Vimala and Clarke, David D. (Eds.), Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, 79–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Cogen, Cathy, Thompson, Henry, Thurgood, Graham, Whistler, Kenneth and Wright, James (Eds.), Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–131. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280: 20–32.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985a. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, Mary, VanClay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki and Feder, Deborah (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 73–86. University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985b. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–253.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. In Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie and Singmaster, Helen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1989. Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, Rainer and Graumann, Carl F. (Eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles and Kay, Paul. 1995. Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita. 2019a. Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 11 (2): 171–192.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita (Ed.). 2019b. On the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Special issue of Constructions and Frames 11 (2).Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kay. 1995. The formal semantics of grammaticalization. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 25 (2): 175–189.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D., Fodor, Jerry A. and Garrett, Merrill F.. 1975. The psychological unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 515–531.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1982. Cognitive science and the twin-earth problem. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23: 98–118.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 2008. LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. and Lepore, Ernest. 2002. The compositionality papers. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A., Garrett, Merrill F., Walker, Edward C. T. and Parkes, Cornelia H.. 1980. Against definitions. Cognition 8: 263–367.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn and Rayner, Keith. 1990. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 181–200.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2015. Construction Grammar. In Kiss, Tibor and Alexiadou, Artemis (Eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, vol. 2, 974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola, Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frisson, Steven. 2009. Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 111–127.Google Scholar
Frisson, Steven and Pickering, Martin J.. 2001. Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol 16: 149–171.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 1999. Some tenets of cognitive semantics. In Allwood, Jens S. and Gärdenfors, Peter (Eds.), Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition, 19–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. Sense individuation. In Riemer, Nick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics, 233–247. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2017. Lexical semantics. In Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Available at: doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.29.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2021. Cognitive semantics. In Wen, Xu and Taylor, John R. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 19–29. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Bryant, Gregory A.. 2008. Striving for optimal relevance when answering questions. Cognition 106 (1): 345–369.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Tendahl, Markus. 2011. Coupling of metaphoric cognition and communication: A reply to Deirdre Wilson. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (4): 601–609.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, Peter M. and the ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Girotto, Vittorio, Kemmelmeir, Markus, Sperber, Dan and Jean-Baptiste, van der Henst. 2001. Inept reasoners or pragmatic virtuosos? Relevance and the deontic selection task. Cognition 81: 69–76.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2022. Emergent categories: Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage. In Krawczak, Karolina, Grygiel, Marcin and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (Eds.), Analogy and contrast in language, 246–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002a. Construction Grammar. In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Macmillan Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002b. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (4): 327–356.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7 (5): 219–224.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory L. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 427–441. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 131–154.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Bencini, Giulia M. L.. 2005. Support from processing for a constructional approach to grammar. In Tyler, Andrea E., Takada, Mari, Kim, Yiyoung and Marinova, Diana (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning, 3–18. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alavin I. 2012. Theory of mind. In Margolis, Eric, Samuels, Richard and Stich, Stephen P. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science, 402–424. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2011. Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics 49 (6): 1305–1358.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2020. Maximizing the explanatory power of constructions in Cognitive Construction Grammar(s). Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 111–122.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. 2007. Metaphor. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 188–213. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Study in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1): 97–129.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1992. Processing for relevance: A pragmatically based account of how we process natural language. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1995. Can, may, must and should: A relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31: 53–79.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 2007. Concepts and word meaning in Relevance Theory. In Burton-Roberts, Noël (Ed.), Pragmatics, 136–157. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 2011. Child language, theory of mind, and the role of procedural markers in identifying referents of nominal expressions. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 205–234. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25: 291–317.Google Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2011. Ad hoc concepts: Atomic or decompositional. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (23): 1–10.Google Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2017. Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In Depraetere, Ilse and Salkie, Raphael (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 85–100. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate. 2005. From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A. 2016. Categories, prototypes and exemplars. In Riemer, Nick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics, 125–141. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hanna, Jeff and Friedemann, Pulvermüller. 2014. Neurophysiological evidence for whole form retrieval of complex derived words: A mismatch negativity study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 886.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter. 2010. Meaning in mind and society: A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter and Boye, Kasper. 2011. Grammaticalization and functional linguistics. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 56–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary L. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 1999. Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Hahn, Martin and Stones, Scott C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 208–211. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Harris, Catherine L. 1998. Psycholinguistic studies of entrenchment. In Koenig, Jean-Pierre (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 55–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 5: 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael and Jaszczolt, Kasia M.. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. and Martin, Paul. 1987. Local pragmatics. In Proceedings of the tenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, 520–523. Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R., Walker, Donald E. and Amsler, Robert A.. 1982. Natural language access to structured text. In COLING 82: Proceedings of the 9th conference on computational linguistics, 127–132. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R., Stickel, Mark E., Appelt, Douglas E. and Martin, Paul. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63 (1–2): 69–142.Google Scholar
Hoek, Jet and Zufferey, Sandrine. 2015. Factors influencing the implicitation of discourse relations across languages. In Bunt, Harry (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th joint ACL-ISO workshop on interoperable semantic annotation (ISA-11), 39–45. TiCC, Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2018. Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66 (3): 259–276.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2022. Construction Grammar: The structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013a. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013b. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, Lotte and Vicente, Agustín. 2020. On the nature of the lexicon: The status of rich lexical meanings. Journal of Linguistics 56: 865–891.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horsey, Richard. 2006. The content and acquisition of lexical concepts. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
House, Jill. 2009. Prosody and context selection: A procedural approach. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Dehé, Nicole and Wichmann, Anne (Eds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics, 129–142. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Hugou, Vincent. 2013. The Xed out construction: Between productivity and creativity. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics 18: 83–95.Google Scholar
Imai, Kunihiko. 1998. Intonation and relevance. In Carston, Robyn and Uchida, Seiji (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele E. (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. Constructions in the parallel architecture. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 70–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Matt A. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2013. Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 28 (10): 1439–1452.Google Scholar
Johnson, Matt A., Boyd, Jeremy K. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2012. Construction learning in children with autism. In Biller, Alia K., Chung, Esther Y. and Kimball, Amelia E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual Boston University conference on language development: Supplemental, 1–15. Boston, MA: Boston University.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The relevance of cleft constructions. Multilingua 16: 187–198.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1993. A cognitive model of sentence interpretation: A construction grammar approach. Technical Report TR-93-077. Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194.Google Scholar
Kaschak, Michael P. and Glenberg, Arthur M.. 2000. Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 43 (3): 508–529.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2004. Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, Lawrence R. and Ward, Gregory (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 675–700. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1–33.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Michaelis, Laura A.. 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus and Portner, Paul (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2271–2296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne (Eds.), Usage-based models of language use, vii–xxviii. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kisielewska-Krysiuk, Marta. 2008. The epistemic/non-epistemic distinction as exemplified by must: A relevance-theoretic perspective. In Mioduszewska, Ewa and Piskorska, Agnieszka (Eds.), Relevance Round Table I, 43–65. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
Klinge, Alex. 1993. The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29: 315–357.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian. 2007. Constraints on inferential constructions. In Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas and Siemund, Peter (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction, 207–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuzai, Einat. 2020. Pragmatic information in constructions: What do speakers generalize? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 215–227.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1988. Cognitive semantics. In Eco, Umberto, Santambrogio, Marco and Violi, Patrizia (Eds.), Meaning and mental representations, 119–154. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1989. Some empirical results about the nature of concepts. Mind & Language 4: 103–129.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1991. Cognitive versus Generative linguistics: How commitments influence results. Language and Communication 11 (1–2): 53–62.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2014. Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Is abstract thought metaphorical thought? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 958.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
La Mantia, Francesco. 2018. Where is meaning going? Semantic potentials and enactive grammars. Acta Structuralica 1: 89–113.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Losing control: Grammaticization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 147–175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz, de Mendoza Ibáñez and María Sandra, Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Cognitive (Construction) Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 167–176.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 79–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2019. Construal. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations of language, 140–166. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langer, Jonas. 1996. Heterochrony and the evolution of primate cognitive development. In Russon, Anne E., Bard, Kim A. and Parker, Sue Taylor (Eds.), Reaching into thought : The minds of the great apes, 257–277. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, Stephen and Margolis, Eric. 1999. Concepts and cognitive science. In Margolis, Eric and Laurence, Stephen (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings, 3–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laurence, Stephen and Margolis, Eric. 2002. Radical concept nativism. Cognition 86: 25–55.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter and Willems, Dominique. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches and new trends. Linguistics 49 (6): 1219–1235.Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît. 2019. Coercion: A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames 11 (2): 270–289.Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît. 2020. Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 225–234.Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît. 2022. Ad hoc concepts and the relevance heuristics: A false paradox? Pragmatics [online first].Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît. 2023. Modality revisited: Combining insights from Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. In Depraetere, Ilse, Cappelle, Bert and Martin, Hilpert et al., Models of modals: From pragmatics and corpus linguistics to machine learning, 60–92. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît and Morin, Cameron. 2023. No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions 15: 1–16.Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, Russell R. 2011. Context in constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2016. Cognitive semantics. In Riemer, Nick (Ed.), Routledge handbook of semantics, 90–105. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2017. A cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics: Response to Hall. In Depraetere, Ilse and Salkie, Raphael (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 101–114. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Leonetti, Manuel and Escandell-Vidal., Victoria 2004. Semántica conceptual /Semántica procedimental. In Milka Villayandre, Llamazares (Ed.), Actas del V Congreso de Lingüística General, vol. II, 1727–1738. Madrid, Arco/Libros.Google Scholar
Leslie, Alan M. 1992. Pretense, autism, and the theory-of-mind module. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1: 18–21.Google Scholar
Leslie, Alan M. 1994. ToMM, ToBy, and agency: Core architecture and domain specificity. In Hirschfeld, Lawrence A. and Gelman, Susan A. (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, 119–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Alex and Bickhard, Mark H.. 1999. Concepts: Where Fodor went wrong. Philosophical Psychology 12: 5–23.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 1985. On semantic change in a dynamic model of language. In Fisiak, Jacek (Ed.), Historical semantics: Historical word-formation, 297–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes and radial categories. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 139–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Bai, Zhu, Zining, Thomas, Guillaume, Rudzicz, Frank and Yang, Xu. 2022. Neural reality of argument structure constructions. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1: 7410–7423.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1690]1975. An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, Peter. 2003. Referential semantics for I-Languages? In Antony, Louise M. and Hornstein, Norbert (Eds.), Chomsky and his critics, 140–161. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Macnamara, John. 1987. Logical competence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (Précis of Relevance) 10: 724–725.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. Associative and inferential approaches to pragmatics: The state of the art of experimental investigation. Methode: Analytic Perspectives 2 (2): 172–194.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2014. Is inference necessary to pragmatics? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 28: 71–95.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003a. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René and Taylor, John R. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 163–209. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003b. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Francis, Elaine J. and Michaelis, Laura A. (Eds.), Mismatch: Form–function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 259–310. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1–67.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Fried, Myriam (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 45–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2017. Meaning of constructions. In Aronoff, Mark (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Available at: doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.309.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2019. Constructions are patterns and so are fixed expressions. In Moehlig-Falke, Ruth and Busse, Beatrix (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics, 193–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mioduszewska, Ewa. 2015. Ad hoc concepts, linguistically encoded meaning and explicit content: Some remarks on Relevance Theoretic perspective. In Malec, Wojciech and Rusinek, Marietta (Eds.), Within language, beyond theories: Discourse analysis, pragmatics and corpus-based studies, 81–96. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Moens, Marc and Steedman, Mark. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14 (2): 15–29.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2016. Where is procedural meaning located? Evidence from discourse connectives and tenses. Lingua 175–176: 122–138.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2018. Truth-conditional pragmatics. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Verschueren, Jef (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 49–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1991. Meaning and concepts. In Schwanenflugel, Paula J. (Ed.), The psychology of word meaning, 11–35. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2000. Knowledge of words versus knowledge about words: The conceptual basis of lexical relations. In Peeters, Bert (Ed.), The lexicon-encyclopedia interface, 317–348. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Murray, John D. 1995. Logical connectives and local coherence. In Lorch, Robert F. and O’Brien, Edward J. (Eds.), Sources of cohesion in text comprehension, 107–125. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Murray, John D. 1997. Connectives and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory and Cognition 25: 227–236.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd. 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1996. Conceptual and procedural encoding in Relevance Theory: A study with reference to English and Kiswahili. Ph.D. thesis, University of York, UK.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1997a. A relevance-theoretic account of be going to. Journal of Linguistics 33: 355–377.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1997b. Conceptual and procedural encoding: Criteria for the identification of linguistically encoded procedural information. In Groefsema, Marjolein (Ed.), Proceedings of the University of Hertfordshire Relevance Theory Workshop, 47–56. Chelmsford: Peter Thomas and Associates.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1998a. Be going to and will: A monosemous account. English Language and Linguistics 2: 223–243.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1998b. A relevance theory perspective on grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 1–35.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2011. Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 401–412. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2015. Diachronic change in procedural semantic content. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 32: 133–148.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 2009. Constructional analysis. In Brisard, Frank, Östman, Jan-Ola and Verschueren, Jef (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 16–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14 (2): 177–202.Google Scholar
Norén, Kerstin and Linell, Per. 2007. Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics 17: 387–416.Google Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2022. Is free enrichment always free? Revisiting ad hoc concept construction. Journal of Pragmatics 187: 130–143.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda L.. 2003. Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda L.. 2007. Metonymy. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 236–263. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 2000. Modality: Issues in the semantics–pragmatics interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003. Is the notion of linguistic competence relevant in cognitive linguistics? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 247–271.Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2009. Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Park, Kyu Hyun and Clark, Billy. 2022. A relevance-focused production heuristic. Journal of Pragmatics 187: 176–185.Google Scholar
Peña Cervel, Mária Sandra. 2017. Revisiting the English resultative family of constructions: A unifying account. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José Ruiz, Oyón, Alba Luzondo and Sobrino, Paula Pérez (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions: Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges, 175–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perry, John. 1993. The problem of the essential indexical and other essays. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Frisson, Steven. 2001. Processing ambiguous verbs: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27: 556–573.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prinz, Jesse J. 2002. Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Timothy. 2019. Analogical cognition: An insight into word meaning. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 10: 587–607.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Cappelle, Bert and Shtyrov, Yury. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Trousdale, Graeme and Hoffmann, Thomas (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 397–416. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17 (4): 409–441.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 2011. Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics 49 (6): 1401–1431.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1953. Two dogmas of empiricism. In Willard Van, Orman Quine (Ed.), From a logical point of view, 20–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas and Siemund, Peter. 2007. The construction of meaning in language. In Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas and Siemund, Peter (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth, Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2000. Words, concepts, mental representations, and other biological categories. In Peeters, Bert (Ed.), The lexicon-encyclopedia interface, 55–95. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2001. Semantic transparency, semantic opacity, states of affairs, mental states and speech acts. In Anolli, Luigi M., Ciceri, Maria R. and Riva, Giuseppe (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication, 46–71. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2014. Mind, values and metaphysics: Philosophical papers dedicated to Kevin Mulligan, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1993. Direct reference: From language to thought. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor: A case of conflict in our language about language. In Ortony, Andrew (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, Anna C. 2013. Relevance theory and poetic effects. Philosophy and Literature 37: 102–117.Google Scholar
Romain, Laurence. 2017. Measuring the alternation strength of causative verbs: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interaction between verb, theme and construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31: 213–236.Google Scholar
Romain, Laurence. 2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33 (1): 35–64.Google Scholar
Romero, Esther and Soria, Belén. 2010. Introduction: Explicit communication and Relevance Theory pragmatics. In Soria, Belén and Romero, Esther (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics, 1–24. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 192–233.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, Eleanor and Lloyd, Barbara B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1983. Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In Scholnick, Ellin K. (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory?, 73–86. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor and Mervis, Carolyn B.. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.Google Scholar
Rubio-Fernández, Paula. 2008. Concept narrowing: The role of context-independent information. Journal of semantics 25: 381–409.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. and Gómez-González, María A. 2014. Constructing discourse and discourse constructions. In Gómez-González, María A, Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. and Gonzálvez-García, Francisco (Eds.), Theory and practice in functional cognitive space, 295–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1946. Knowing how and knowing that. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society XLVI: 1–16.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. 2005. Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Aurnague, Michel, Bras, Myriam, Le Draoulec, Anne and Vieu, Laure (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international symposium on the exploration and modelling of meaning (SEM-05), 31–44. Biarritz, France.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek. 1998. What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 361–378.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek and Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6 (1): 89–130.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117–138. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2012. Linguistic theories, approaches and methods. In Middeke, Martin, Müller, Timo, Wald, Christina and Zapf, Hubert (Eds.), English and American studies: Theory and practice, 371–394. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2014. Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In Herbst, Thomas, Schmid, Hans-Jörg and Faulhaber, Susen (Eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, 239–293. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2017. Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. Boston, MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scholl, Brian J. and Leslie, Alan M.. 1999. Modularity, development, and “theory of mind.” Mind & Language 14: 131–153.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2011. Beyond reference: Concepts, procedures and referring expressions. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 183–203. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2016. Pronouns and procedures: Reference and beyond. Lingua 175–176: 69–82.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2017. Prosody, procedures and pragmatics. In Depraetere, Ilse and Salkie, Raphael (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 323–341. Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2021. Contrastive stress in English: Meaning, expectations and ostension. In Ifantidou, Elly, de Saussure, Louis and Wharton, Tim (Eds.), Beyond meaning, 29–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho and Kim, Hyunwoo. 2021. Roles of verb and construction cues: Cross-language comparisons between English and Korean sentence comprehension. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19 (2): 332–362.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Mellinda and Winckler, Walter K.. 1991. Relevance theory: Explaining verbal communication. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 18: 1–97.Google Scholar
Slattery, Timothy J., Sturt, Patrick, Christianson, Kiel, Yoshida, Masaya and Ferreira, Fernanda. 2013. Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language 69: 104–120.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 1994. The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In Hirschfeld, Lawrence A. and Gelman, Susan A. (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, 39–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2000a. Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In Sperber, Dan (Ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2000b. Introduction. In Sperber, Dan (Ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2000c. Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2001. In defense of massive modularity. In Dupoux, Emmanuel (Ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Carruthers, Peter, Laurence, Stephen and Stich, Stephen (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and content, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1987. Precis of relevance: Communication and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10: 697–754.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Carruthers, Peter and Boucher, Jill (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17: 3–23.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 2005. Pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 353–388.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphor. In Gibbs, Ray W. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–105. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Cara, Francesco and Girotto, Vittorio. 1995. Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition 57: 31–95.Google Scholar
Squire, Larry R. 2004. Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82: 171–177.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda L. (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 105–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. and Brian, MacWhinney. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Michael, Hammond and Michael, Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology, 101–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stöver, Hanna. 2010. Metaphor and Relevance Theory: A new hybrid model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bedfordshire.Google Scholar
Suttle, Laura and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 6: 1237–1270.Google Scholar
Sztencel, Magdalena. 2011. From words to concepts. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 3: 375–394.Google Scholar
Sztencel, Magdalena. 2012a. Against referential semantics. In Frath, Pierre, Bourdier, Valérie, Hilgert, Emilia, Bréhaux, Karine and Dunphy-Blomfield, Jocelyn (Eds.), Res-per-nomen III: La référence, la conscience et le sujet énonciateur, 485–498. Reims: ÉPURE – Éditions et Presses Universitaires de Reims.Google Scholar
Sztencel, Magdalena. 2012b. Do we need specifically linguistic semantics? Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 73–92.Google Scholar
Sztencel, Magdalena. 2018. Semantics, pragmatics and meaning revisited: The case of conditionals. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Tabossi, Patrizia, Fanari, Rachele and Wolf, Kinou. 2009. Why are idioms recognized fast? Memory and Cognition 37: 529–540.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 2, Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2017. Lexical semantics. In Dancygier, Barbara (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 246–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R., Cuyckens, Hubert and Dirven, René. 2003. New directions in cognitive lexical semantic research. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René and Taylor, John (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 1–28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Taylor, Kenneth A. 2001. Sex, breakfast, and descriptus interruptus. Synthese 128: 45–61.Google Scholar
Tendahl, Markus and Gibbs, Ray. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive Linguistics and Relevance Theory. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (11): 1823–1864.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Koide, Yuka. 1987. Iconicity and “indirect objects” in English. Journal of Pragmatics 11 (3): 399–406.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, Deanna and Siegler, Robert S. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.), 255–298. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael and Slobin, Dan I.. 2005. Beyond nature nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Wright, Susan and Stein, Dieter (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1999. The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: A study of subjectification. In Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter (Eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 177–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (Ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (Eds.), Constructions and language change, 21–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven and Cuyckens, Hubert (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2014. Grammaticalization: An interview with Elizabeth Closs Traugott. ReVEL 12 (22).Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte and Gildea, Spike (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard, König. 1991. The semantics–pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 189–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008a. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from a composite predicate in the history of English. In Trousdale, Graeme and Gisborne, Nikolas (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008b. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Minkova, Donka (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change, 301–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. In Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke and König, Ekkehard (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 51–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte and Mortelmans, Tanja (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 167–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias and Hartmann, Stefan. 2023. Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste. 2006. Relevance effects in reasoning. Mind & Society 5 (2): 229–245.Google Scholar
van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Noveck, Ira and Sperber, Dan (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics, 141–171. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, Carles, Laure and Sperber, Dan. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind & Language 17: 457–466.Google Scholar
van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, Sperber, Dan and Politzer, Guy. 2002. When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning 8: 1–20.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2001. Representing and processing idioms. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 73–107.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2003. Relevance Theory and the construction of idiom meaning. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 83–104.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, Rosa E. 2005. Idioms, transparency and pragmatic inference. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 17: 389–426.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2018. Adaptability and meaning potential. In Mesthrie, Rajend and Bradley, David (Eds.), The dynamics of language: Plenary and focus papers from the 20th international congress of linguists, Cape Town, July 2018, 93–109. Cape Town: UCT Press.Google Scholar
Vicente, Agustín and Fernando, Martínez-Manrique. 2010. On relevance theory’s atomistic commitments. In Soria, Belén and Romero, Esther (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics, 42–57. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vicente, Begoña. 2005. Meaning in relevance theory and the semantics/pragmatics distinction. In Coulson, Seana and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (Eds.), The literal and non-literal in language and thought, 179–200. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wałaszewska, Ewa. 2011. Broadening and narrowing in lexical development: How relevance theory can account for children’s overextensions and underextensions. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 314–326.Google Scholar
Walton, Alan L. 1988. The pragmatics of English modal verbs. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2004. Lexical acquisition and pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 323–341.Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2009. Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2014. What words mean is a matter of what people mean by them. Linguagem em (Dis)curso 14 (3): 473–488.Google Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, Katja and Xu, Xu. 2005. Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science 29: 719–736.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. In Sperber, Dan (Ed.), Metarepresentations: An interdisciplinary perspective, 411–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. Relevance Theory and lexical pragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica 15: 273–291.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2005. New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua 115: 1129–1246.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2009. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics. Studies in Pragmatics 11: 42–60.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, Leonetti, Manuel and Ahern, Aoife (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2012. Modality and the conceptual-procedural distinction. In Wałaszewska, Ewa and Piskorska, Agnieszka (Eds.), Relevance Theory: More than understanding, 24–43. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2016. Reassessing the conceptual-procedural distinction. Lingua 175: 5–19.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2017. Relevance Theory. In Huang, Yan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 79–100. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2022. Communication, comprehension and interpretation. In Colson, Herbert L., Matlock, Teenie and Steen, Gerard J. (Eds.), Dynamism in metaphor and beyond, 143–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21 (3): 404–433.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Burton-Roberts, Noël (Ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Carston, Robyn. 2019. Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31–38.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 1991. Pragmatics and modularity. In Davis, Steven (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader, 583–595. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical investigations (trans. G. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittke, Kacie, Mastergeorge, Ann M., Ozonoff, Sally, Rogers, Sally J. and Naigles, Letitia R.. 2017. Grammatical language impairment in autism spectrum disorder: Exploring language phenotypes beyond standardized testing. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 532.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2008. Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2013. Words and idioms. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 274–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Xue, Bing and Lin, Lu. 2022. 语用学与认知语言学融合的新路径 – 推论- 构式语用观 (Integrating pragmatics and cognitive linguistics: A call for inferential-constructional pragmatics). 外语与外语教学 (Foreign languages and their teaching) 2: 12–20.Google Scholar
Ye, Zheng, Zhan, Weidong and Zhou, Xiaolin. 2007. The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research 1142: 135–145.Google Scholar
Yeh, Wenchi and Barsalou, Lawrence W.. 2006. The situated nature of concepts. American Journal of Psychology 119: 349–384.Google Scholar
Yoon, Soyeon. 2012. Constructions, semantic compatibility, and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Ph.D. thesis, Rice University, Texas.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007a. Arguing the case against coercion. In Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas and Siemund, Peter (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007b. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 990–1028.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine. 2010. Lexical pragmatics and theory of mind: The acquisition of connectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine. 2015. Acquiring pragmatics: Social and cognitive perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Moeschler, Jacques and Reboul, Anne. 2019. Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar