References
1 Bod, R.
Beyond Grammar: An Experience‐Based Theory of Language. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press; 1998.
2 Morris, WC, Cottrell, GW, Elman, JL. %22A connectionist simulation of the empirical acquisition of grammatical relations%22. Pp 175–193 in Stefan Wermter, and Ron Sun,, eds.
Hybrid Neural Symbolic Integration.
Heidelberg: Springer‐Verlag; 2000.
3 Borovsky, A, Elman, JL. Language input and semantic categories: a relation between cognition and early word learning. J Child Lang 2006; 33: 759–790. doi:10.1017/S0305000906007574.
4 Alishahi, A, Stevenson, S. A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cogn Sci 2008; 32: 789–834. doi: 10.1080/03640210801929287.
5 Tomasello, M.
Constructing a Language: A Usage Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press; 2003.
6 Croft, W.
Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2001.
7 Haspelmath, M. %22Parametric versus functional explanation of syntactic universals.%22 In: Biberauer, T, ed.
The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 2008, 75–107.
8 Evans, N, Levinson, S. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav Brain Sci 2009, 32: 429–448.
9 Hawkins, JA.
Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2004.
10 Goldberg, AE. But do we need Universal Grammar? A comment on Lidz
et al. (2003). Cognition 2004, 94: 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.03.003.
11 Goldberg, AE.
Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2006.
12 Newmeyer, FJ.
Possible and Probable Languages. A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2005.
13 Bybee, J.
Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 1985.
14 Langacker, RW. %22A usage‐based model%22. In: Rudzka‐Ostyn, B, ed.
Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 1988, 127–161.
15 Kemmer, S, Barlow, M.
Usage‐Based Models of Language. Stanford:
CSLI; 2000.
16 Pierrehumbert, J. %22Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition, and contrast%22. In: Bybee, J, Hopper, P, eds.
Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 2001, 137–157.
17 Bybee, J. %22The phonology of the lexicon: evidence from lexical diffusion.%22 In: Barlow, M, Kemmer, S, eds.
Usage‐based Models of Language. Stanford:
CSLI; 2000 65–86.
18 Gahl, S, Garnsey, S. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 2004, 80: 748–775.
19 Goldberg, AE, Boyd, J.
A‐adjectives, Historical Persistence and Generalization.
Princeton University; Forthcoming.
20 Gurevich, O, Johnson, M, Goldberg, AE.
Incidental Verbatim Memory for Language. 2010. In press.
21 Chomsky, N.
The Minimalist Program. Cambridge:
MIT Press; 1995.
22 Kayne, RS.
Movement and Silence. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; 2005.
23 Goldberg, AE. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cogn Linguist 2002, 13: 327–356. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.022.
24 Lakoff, G.
Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press; 1987.
25 Goldberg, AE.
Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press; 1995.
26 Kay, P, Fillmore, CJ. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What`s X doing Y? construction. Language 1999, 75: 1–34.
27 Chomsky, N.
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge:
MIT Press; 1965.
28 Chomsky, N.
Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter; 1981.
29 Mintz, TH, Newport, EL, Bever, T. The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cogn Sci 2002, 26: 393–424. doi: 10.1016/S0364‐0213(2).
30 Dabrowska, E.
Language, Mind and Brain. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press; 2004.
31 Cameron‐Faulkner, T, Lieven, EVM, Tomasello, M. A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cogn Sci 2003, 27: 843–873. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.06.001.
32 Saffran, JR, Aslin, RN, Newport, E. Statistical learning by 8‐month‐old infants. Science 1996, 274: 1926–1928. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5294.1926.
33 Perfors, A, Tenenbaum, JB, Regier, T. %22Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach%22. In: Sun, R, ed.
Proceedings of the Twenty‐eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006, 663–668.
34 Tomasello, M. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 2000, 74: 209–253. doi: 10.1016/S0010‐0277 (99) 00069‐4.
35 Akhtar, N, Tomasello, M. Young children`s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Dev Psychol 1997, 33: 952–965. doi: 10.1037/0012‐1649.33.6.952.
36 Baker, CL. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguist Inq 1979, 10: 533–581.
37 Bates, E, MacWhinney, B. %22Competition, variation, and language learning%22. In: MacWhinney, B, ed.
Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1987, 157–193.
38 Bowerman, M. %22Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development%22. In: Wanner, E, Gleitman, LR, eds.
Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1982, 319–346.
39 Braine, MDS. Children`s first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1976, 41.
40 Brooks, P, Tomasello, M. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 1999, 75: 720–738.
41 Gropen, J, Pinker, S, Hollander, M, Goldberg, R, Wilson, R. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 1989, 65: 203–257.
42 Ingram, D, Thompson, W. Early syntactic acquisition in German: evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language 1996, 72: 97–120.
43 Lieven, EVM, Pine, JM, Baldwin, G. Lexically‐based learning and early grammatical development. J Child Lang 1997, 24: 187–219.
44 MacWhinney, B. %22Basic syntactic processes%22. In: Kuczaj, S, ed.
Language Development, Volume 1: Syntax and Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers; 1982, 73–136.
45 Olguin, R, Tomasello, M. Twenty‐five‐month‐old children do not have a grammatical category of verb. Cogn Dev 1993, 8: 245–272. doi: 10.1016/S0885‐2014 (93)80001‐A.
46 Schlesinger, IM.
Steps to Language: Toward a Theory of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers; 1982.
47 Tomasello, M.
First Verbs: A Case Study of Grammatical Development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1992.
48 Boyd, J, Goldberg, AE.
Children are More Conservative than Adults when Exposed to the Same Input and its Benefits for Language Learning.
Princeton University; Forthcoming.
49 Hudson Kam, CL, Newport, EL. Regularizing unpredictable variation: the roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Lang Learn Dev 2005, 1: 151–195. doi: 10.1207/s15473341lld0102_3.
50 Ambridge, B, Theakston, AL, Lieven, EVM, Tomasello, M. The distributed learning effect for children`s acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cogn Dev 2006, 21: 174–193. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev. 2005.09.003.
51 Goldberg, AE, Casenhiser, D, Sethuraman, N. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cogn Linguist 2004, 15: 289–316. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2004.011.
52 Casenhiser, D, Goldberg, AE. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Dev Sci 2005, 8: 500–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2005.00441.x.
53 Elio, R, Anderson, JR. The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Mem Cognit 1984, 12: 20–30.
54 Goldberg, AE, Casenhiser, D. %22Learning argument structure generalizations%22. In: Clark, EV, Kelly, BF, eds.
Constructions in Acquisition. Stanford:
CSLI Publications; 2006, 185–204.
55 Perlmutter, DM, Postal, PM. Toward a universal characterization of passivization.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley; 1977.
56 Birner, B, Ward, G.
Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 1998.
57 Zhang, N. The interactions between construction meaning and lexical meaning. Linguistics 1998, 36: 957–980.
58 Jackendoff, R.
Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press; 1972.
59 Nichols, J. Head‐marking and dependent‐marking grammar. Language 1986, 62: 56–119.
60 Hawkins, JA. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguist Inq 1990, 21: 222–261.
61 Hawkins, JA.
A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1994.
62 Reali, F, Christiansen, MH. Sequential learning and the interaction between biological and linguistic adaptation in language evolution: a computational approach. Interact Stud. 2009, 10: 5–30.
63 Lidz, J, Gleitman, H, Gleitman, L. Understanding how input matters: verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 2003, 87: 151–178. doi: 10.1016/S0010‐0277 (02) 00230‐5.
64 Dowty, D. Thematic proto‐roles and argument selection. Language 1991, 67: 547–619.
65 Lambrecht, K.
Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1994.
66 Verhagen, A. From parts to wholes and back again. Cogn Linguist 2002, 13: 403–439. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2002.024.
67 Haiman, J.
Iconicity in Syntax. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1985.
68 Givon, T. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Stud Lang 1991, 15: 333–377.
69 Kemmer, S, Verhagen, A. %22The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events%22. In: Mouton Classics: From Syntax to Cognition, from Phonology to Text; Berlin, 2002, 451–491.
70 Blevins, J, Blevins, J. %22Introduction: Analogy in grammar%22. In: Blevins, JP, Blevins, J, eds.
Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press; to appear, 1–12.
71 Levinson, SC.
Pragmatics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1983.
72 Van Valin, RDJ. %22The acquisition of wh‐questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition%22. In: Tomasello, M, ed.
The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure; 1998, 221–249.
73 Kluender, R. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: a processing perspective. Syntax Semant; 1998, 29: 241–280.
74 Kluender, R, Kutas, M. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang Cogn Processes 1993, 8: 573–633. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407588.
75 Erteschik‐Shir, N.
The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1997.
76 Ambridge, B, Goldberg, AE. The island status of clausal complements: evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cogn Linguist 2008, 19: 349–381. doi:10.1515/COGL.2008.014.
77 Baker, M.
Lexical Categories: Nouns, Verbs and Adjectives. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2003.
78 Hauser, M, Chomsky, N, Fitch, T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 2002, 298: 1569–1579. doi:10.1126/ science.298.5598.1569.
79 Gentner, T, Fenn, KM, Margoliash, D, Nusbaum, HC. Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 2006, 440: 1204–1207. doi:10.1038/nature 04675.
80 Pinker, S, Jackendoff, R. The faculty of language: what`s special about it? Cognition 2005, 95: 201–236. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004.
81 Kay, P, Michaelis, LA. %22Constructional meaning and compositionality%22. In: Maienborn, C, von Heusinger, K, Portner, P, eds.
Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter; Forthcoming.
82 Sag, IA.
Sign‐Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis Stanford University; 2007, Manuscript.
83 Langacker, R.
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1. Stanford:
Stanford University Press; 1987.
84 Langacker, R.
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2. Stanford:
Stanford University Press; 1991.
85 Steels, L, De Beule, J. %22A (very) brief introduction to fluid construction grammar%22 In:
Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Scalable Natural Language. Madison, WI:
Omnipress Inc.; 2006 73–80.
86 Feldman, J.
From Molecule to Metaphor. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press; 2006.
87 Bergen, BK, Chang, N. %22Embodied construction grammar in simulation‐based language understanding%22. In: Östman, J‐O, Fried, M, eds.
Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins; 2005. (Reprinted in Evans V, Bergen B and Zinken J, eds.
The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London, Equinox; 2007.).
88 Stefanowitsch, A, Gries, ST. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. Int JCorpus Linguist 2003, 8.2: 209–243.
89 Culicover, P, Jackendoff, R.
Simpler Syntax.
Oxford University Press; 2005.
90 Goldberg, AE. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends Cogn Sci 2003, 7: 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‐6613 (03) 00080‐9.
91 Haiman, J.
Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 1985.
