Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-wdhn8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T13:53:02.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Constructional Networks

from Part II - Methodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Lotte Sommerer  and
Freek Van de Velde
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, a central tenet of Construction Grammar is explored: the idea that linguistic knowledge on all levels (e.g., lexicon, morphosyntax, pragmatics) is related in a network fashion, with the building blocks of language (i.e., constructions) forming different types of connections (i.e., links). In general, we discuss the ingredients of constructional networks with our main focus on construction-external links (vertical and horizontal). Another aim of the chapter is to embed constructional networks into a larger domain-general theory of networks but also to demarcate constructional modeling from other network models in linguistics, like Connectionism or models of sociolinguistic propagation. We also glance at how diachronic network change is currently being conceptualized and end by a discussion of open issues.

Keywords

networkshorizontal relationsvertical relationsmultiple inheritanceConstruction Grammar
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 220 - 246
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barabási, A.-L. & Reka, A. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic construction grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F., eds., Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). General features of complex systems. In Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford: EOLSS UNESCO Publishers.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds. (2009). Context and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–254.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, G., Krämer, I., & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization. The role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, R. D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Schönefeld, D., ed., Constructions All Over: Case Studies and Theoretical Implications, special issue of Constructions, SV1-7/2006, 1–28.Google Scholar
Colleman, T. & Van de Velde, F. (2015). Variatie en verandering in constructies: op het snijvlak van de constructiegrammatica en de variatielinguïstiek. Taal en Tongval, 67(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. (2014). Lexical expansion in the have and be perfect in Dutch. A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica, 31, 159–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. (2018). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds., Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J., eds. (2018). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Opportunities, Challenges and Potential Incompatibilities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2017). Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. & Van de Velde, F. (2013). Serving two masters: Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language, 37(3), 534–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011). Review of “Language, usage and cognition” by Joan Bybee. Language, 87, 830–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 295–321.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2023). The Constructicon: Taxonomies and Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Kay, P. (1993). Construction Grammar Coursebook, Chapters 1–11 (Reading Materials for Ling X20). Linguistics Department, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2018). Analogy: Its role in language learning, categorization, and in models of language change such as grammaticalization and constructionalization. In Hancil, S., Breban, T., & Lozano, J. V., eds., New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L. (2019). Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1998). The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In Van Langendonck, W. & Van Belle, W., eds., The Dative, Vol. 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1992). Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In Hawkins, J. & Gell-Mann, M., eds., The Evolution of Human Languages. New York: Addison-Wesley, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J. & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. (2017). Multiple Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herbst, Th. & Hoffmann, T. (2018). Construction Grammar for students: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 6(1), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieber, D. (2018). Category genesis in Chitimacha. A constructional approach. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds., Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 15–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, Challenges and Potential Incompatibilities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in Construction Grammar. In Schmid, H.‑J., ed., Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Flach, S. (2022). A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In Krawczak, K., Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., & Grygiel, M., eds., Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., & Wiemer, B., eds., What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, Volume 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010). An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E., ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ke, J., Gong, T., & Wang, W. S.-Y. (2008). Language change and social networks. Communications in Computational Physics, 3(4), 935–949.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language, 83(2), 344–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1974). Syntactic amalgams. Chicago Linguistic Society, 10, 321–344.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev-Ari, S. (2018). Social network size can influence linguistic malleability and the propagation of linguistic change. Cognition, 176, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. C., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, pp. 168–196.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2013). Contractions of English Semi-modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. Freiburg: Rombach.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2020). Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links. To-contraction in American English. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markey, M.-A. (2022). Finding Footprints: Evidence for the Role of Analogy in Language Change. PhD dissertation. KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (1994). A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language, 18, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. & Colleman, T. (2021). Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 662–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. & Morris, C. (2018). Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds., Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 47–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, M. & Wang, W. S.-Y. (2008). Dynamic dialectology and social networks. In Dossena, M., Dury, R., & Gotti, M., eds., English Historical Linguistics 2006, Volume 3: Geo-Historical Variation in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. & Huddleston, R. (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perc, M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(98), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2019). Where, How and Why Does Argument Structure Vary? A Usage-Based Investigation into the Dutch Transitive-Prepositional Alternation. PhD dissertation. KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., Speelman, D., Van de Velde, F., & Grondelaers, S. (2021). Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 487–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raviv, L., Meyer, A., & Lev-Ari, S. (2019). Larger communities create more systematic languages. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Science, 286(1907), 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Raviv, L., Meyer, A., & Lev-Ari, S. (2020). The role of social network structure in the emergence of linguistic structure. Cognitive Science, 44(8), e12876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding Child Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., ed. (2016). Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, E. & Sommerer, L. (2020). The nature of the node and the network: Open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Baumann, A. (2021). Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Review, 8, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., Tagliamonte, S., & Todd, S. (2017). Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa, 2(1), 86.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Possessive genitives in English. Linguistics, 27, 663–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 109–140.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2014). On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 557–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist Approaches: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., The Extending Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2018). Iterated exaptation. In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 519–544.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F., De Smet, H., & Ghesquière, L. (2013). On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. & Fonteyn, L. (2017). Degeneracy. The evolutionary advantage of the violation of isomorphism. Paper presented at SLE, Zürich, September 10–13, 2017.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F., Maekelberghe, C., & Fonteyn, L. (2021). Towards a taxonomy of horizontal relations. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG), Antwerp, August 18–20, 2021.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G., eds. (2018). Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2013). A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 5(1), 88–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D. J. & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitacre, J. & Bender, A. (2010). Degeneracy: A design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 263, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B. (2014). Spoken language achieves robustness and evolvability by exploiting degeneracy and neutrality. Bioessays, 36, 960–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E. & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 167–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×