Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) construction (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: construction


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines206 - : Esta motivación se basa en la idea de que “the construction of a coherent situation model is tantamount to the successful comprehension of a text” (Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998: 163), es decir, para Zwaan, a diferencia de otros autores (Kintsch, 1998 ), el modelo de situación no es solo un requisito para la comprensión o parte de ella, sino su equivalente. En este sentido, según Zwaan y Radvansky (1998), la pregunta de investigación a responder no es cómo los lectores comprenden un texto, sino cómo ellos construyen un modelo de situación.

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines209 - : It could be said that the specialized discourse literacy (academic and professional) has just began to be explored recently in Chile. Advances in this line must start from a deep and empirical analysis of real data. Thus, one way to access to the specialized written genres employed by the academia is to begin from the tenant that all materials read by students in university training reveal relevant data about disciplinary discourse and knowledge. This article gives information about a research Project, in its first steps, at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaiso, Chile, focused on the collection, construction and description of an academia corpus based on texts collected in the academic and professional areas of four disciplinary domains of knowledge: Industrial Chemistry, Construction Engineering, Social Work, and Psychology . So, a revision of the concepts of specialized, academic, and professional discourse is presented. Then, the procedures of collecting and organizing the

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines265 - : Benke, G. & Wodak, R. (2003). The discursive construction of individual memories: How Austrian "Wehrmacht" soldiers remember WWII . En J. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds.), Re/reading the past. Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp. 115-138). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [ [49]Links ]

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Didactic units 1, 2, 3, 4: The strategies of thematic progression and the ones addressed to the construction of the text macrostructure are dealt with, the following objectives: to acknowledge the connecting theme between the text ideas, to extract every aspect that refers to this theme (comments ), to differentiate the text's "main idea" from the "details", and to select the text's main ideas, evaluating every idea in relationship to the rest.

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines282 - : Didactic unit 6: The strategies of metacomprehension and those oriented to the construction of the text model are dealt with, the following objectives: to formulate and verify hypotheses before, during and after reading, to establish relationships between the information given by the text and the reader's previous knowledge and to plan, supervise and assess comprehension .

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines311 - : Within vertical discourse Bernstein makes a second distinction between hierarchical and horizontal knowledge structures. A hierarchical knowledge structure, exemplified by natural science disciplines, is "a coherent, explicit and systematically principled structure, hierarchically organised" which "attempts to create very general propositions and theories, which integrate knowledge at lower levels, and in this way shows underlying uniformities across an expanding range of apparently different phenomena" (Bernstein, 1999: 161-162). In contrast, a horizontal knowledge structure, exemplified by disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, is "a series of specialised languages with specialised modes of interrogation and criteria for the construction and circulation of texts" (Bernstein, 1999: 162 ).

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines311 - : discussing and how. In contrast, horizontal knowledge structures such as history may have a hierarchical knower structure: "a systematically principled and hierarchical organisation of knowers based on the construction of an ideal knower and which develops through the integration of new knowers at lower levels and across an expanding range of different dispositions" (Maton, 2010: 162 ). In short, what matters more is who you are. Fields are thus knowledge-knower structures which classify, assign, arrange and hierarchise not only what but also who is considered legitimate (Maton, to appear).

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines349 - : The rhetorical construction of the Colombian armed conflict: Metaphor and legitimization of warlike status of the conflict

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines353 - : García-Miguel, J. M. (2007). Syntactic and semantic integration in the Spanish causative-reflexive constructions. In N. Delbecque & B. Cornillie. (Eds.), On interpreting construction schemas: From action and motion to transitivity and causality (pp . 201-228). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [ [56]Links ]

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines414 - : is less probable to happen, as opposed to what may occur when using ‘transfer’ (L1-based messages) or ‘avoidance’ types of CSs (unfinished messages or omission of information). Something similar, in terms of complexity, can be evidenced in the use of ‘foreignising’. In the excerpt above it can be seen that this mechanism implies a greater effort on the part of the speaker, who is trying to adapt a word from her L1 into the L2. By doing this, it becomes clear that this type of CS, as ‘circumlocution’, requires a higher cognitive and linguistic effort, since “it requires a construction process which leads to the creation of a new word” (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998: 364 ). Thus, this outcome seems to demonstrate the learners’ progress from the use of less cognitively and linguistically demanding CSs to those considered more complex as their level of L2 competence progresses (Prebianca, 2009).

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : that looks similar to a passive construction, and the corresponding erroneous extraction:

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines433 - : In this article we approach the construction of authorial voice in doctorate theses of a humanistic discipline: philosophy . Our purpose is to illustrate, based on an exploratory study focused on the identification of marks of the first person and attribution, the way in which doctorate candidates construct an identity as writers/researchers according to the requirements of the discourse genre in this area. The results show that dissertation writers have a strong tendency to construct their identity as specialists who master the disciplinary content; however, the times, when they incorporate the role of author-researchers, are rare. This fact leads us to open discussion as regards the training of researchers in the area of Humanities, and the need to propose intervention plans concerning academic and scientific literacy, which allow graduates of these programs to become writers who raise the visibility of the field in local and international academic contexts.

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : The family of Construction Grammars (CxG(s)) comprises a number of compatible approaches, among which we find the following (^[25]Hoffmann & Trousdale, 2013): 'Cognitive CxG' (^[26]Goldberg, 2006 ); 'Frame-Semantic CxG' (^[27]Boas, 2011); and 'Cognitive Grammar' (^[28]Langacker, 1987). In general, even though these accounts differ in their theoretical orientation towards particular issues, most of them share important underlying assumptions (Goldberg, 2013). One point of consensus among the above-listed proposals revolves around the understanding of the notion of linguistic 'construction' as an entrenched form-meaning pairing, which, for any language, is part of a network of form-function correspondences (the so-called 'constructicon') featuring diverse construction-types at different levels of complexity and abstraction. A non-exhaustive inventory includes widely studied argument-structure constructions like the ditransitive (e.g. Scott sent Mary a book), resultative (e.g. The river froze

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * e. Constructions in which rip participates: transitive resultative (e .g. 'Sue ripped the bag open'; GBAC, 2005); ‘apart reciprocal’ construction (e.g. 'It tears open the lid of my trunk, seizes my notebooks, rips them apart'; GBAC, 2003); ‘way’ construction (e.g. 'This opening was no doubt made by the creature in the entryway as it had ripped its way through the exterior of the building to get inside'; GBAC, 2015), etc.

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * c. Variable(s) contributed by the construction: z (‘apart’ )

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : The L2-Constructicon is made up of implicational constructions. One such construction was listed in the Introduction: 'Don’t You X Me!', where X is an echo of what the speaker’s interlocutor has already said . Note that this construction, like all implicational constructions, captures subjective aspects of meaning, usually in the form of negative emotional reactions like irritation or concern. Two other constructions that convey the speaker’s irritation have been discussed in ^[95]Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera (2014). These are 'Do I Look Like I X?' and 'It Wouldn’t Kill You to X'. Like all level 2 constructions, they contain fixed (e.g. 'Look Like') and variable elements (e.g. X). The fixed elements constrain the variable elements from a formal morphosyntactic perspective, but the variable elements are further constrained by non-formal factors too. Since FunGramKB is concerned with conceptualization, we will here explore the meaning part of these two constructions with a view to their

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : that the construction expresses a challenge, this is level-2 (or illocutionary) meaning. The construction, at level 2, is used to express the speaker’s emotional reaction to the hearer’s inaction. The reaction is one of puzzlement: the speaker cannot understand why the hearer has not taken a course of action that will prove beneficial to someone (generally, the speaker or a third party, but it could be the hearer himself). It is from this level-2 meaning that the default illocutionary value (an entreaty or even a challenge) of the construction is obtained. In turn, the variable X is again, as with other constructions, constrained by constructional meaning: X denotes an action/behavior in which the hearer should be actively involved and the action or behavior should be of benefit to someone else, as in 'It wouldn’t do you harm/kill you to do the laundry/apologize/follow me on Instagram/help me/be nice/show a little more respect' .

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : If we saturate X with conceptual material denoting a neutral or non-beneficial action, the construction can either override such a meaning (thus turning it into something beneficial), or, if the result of such an override clashes strongly with what is socio-culturally acceptable, a seriously infelicitous expression may arise:

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : On the basis of the linguistic approach provided thus far, we now turn to a computational treatment of the constructions discussed in this section, i.e. 'Do I Look Like X?' and 'It Wouldn’t kill you to X'. For illustrative purposes, [104]Figure 4displays the interface of the L2-Constructicon, showing how the former construction has been formalized:

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp . 231-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [149]Links ]

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines494 - : Our results suggest that language study should be addressed from a more naturalistic standpoint, considering its dynamic nature and keeping in mind that it is not only permanently linked to contextual factors, but also constantly related to creation and novelty (^[122]Hörmann, 1981, ^[123]1986; ^[124]Shanon, 1988, ^[125]1990a, ^[126]1990b, ^[127]1991). All of these points at viewing meaning as a contextual construction process tied both to personal and socially constructed dimensions. Thus, two factors must be considered in the meaning construction process: a ) the situational context and b) the person itself.

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : FunGramKB is grounded on two robust and complementary linguistic models: (i) the projectionist model of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)^[39]^2 (^[40]Van Valin & LaPolla, 1997; Van Valin, 2005), which provides the knowledge base with some basic assumptions related to the linking algorithm for the merging of lexical structures into constructional configurations (for example, Aktionsart ascription, macrorole assignment, status of variables, or logical structures, to name but a few); and (ii) the Lexical Constructional Model (LCM) (^[41]Mairal & Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2008; ^[42]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez & Mairal, 2008; ^[43]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2013; ^[44]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez & Galera, 2014), which contributes to providing a layered structure of meaning construction that has helped to “fully integrate constructional meaning into RRG to deepen semantic processing” (^[45]Periñán-Pascual, 2013: 206 ). The LCM also offers a notion of construction that is more adequate for the computational

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : This paper explores the notion of constructions in FunGramKB and revises the criteria that have been used in order to determine what factors can modify the internal configuration of the lexical templates of verbal predicates (^[48]Fumero & Díaz, 2017). As such, a new criterion will be suggested and a revised version of the alphabetical catalogue of level 1 (L1) constructions by Fumero and Díaz (2017) will be presented. At a more specific level, the current research will strive to contribute to the analysis of the family of locative constructions in the English language by describing the peculiarities underlying each locative construction and how they can be formalised in the CLS so that the parser will be able to decode the syntactic behaviour of verbal predicates when analysed in terms of the parsing requirements of the syntactic rules of the Grammar Development Environment in ARTEMIS .

24
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Constructions: Locative construction, Middle construction (type 2 ), Middle construction, Unexpressed third argument construction

25
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : In the last step in the parsing process, the CLS has to be automatically transduced into “a purely semantic conceptual representation in COREL” (^[61]Fumero & Díaz, 2017: 37). COREL (Conceptual Representation Language) is the machine-readable metalanguage that is used in the conceptual semantic representation of CLSs “that serves as the input for the reasoning engine” (^[62]Van Valin & Mairal 2014: 217), as shown below in the COREL scheme for the L1-locative construction that appears in the Grammaticon module in FunGramKB:

26
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Of the different modules that constitute FunGramKB, it is the Lexicon and the Grammaticon that we will be focusing on in this research study. We will be specifically revising one of the attributes in the core grammar component in the Lexicon which has to do with the inventory of argumental constructions in which verbs can take part: L1- constructions .^[63]^5 The notion of construction, which is directly linked to the Grammaticon module (where constructional schemata are stored in different Constructicon modules), needs to be clearly and unequivocally defined in FunGramKB, as Periñán-Pascual himself highlights: “A key issue in this module [Grammaticon] is the definition of ‘construction’” (Periñán-Pascual, 2013: 213).

27
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : ^[64]Periñán-Pascual (2013) points out that Goldberg’s broad conception of construction in Construction Grammar (CxG) makes it difficult to provide an accurate definition of the term since from her point of view any single lexical item (or even a suffix such as -ed) could be conceived as a construction: “all levels of grammatical analysis involve constructions” (Goldberg, 2006: 5 ). This implies that, within this broad definition, constructions are conceived as the building blocks in linguistic realization. Periñán-Pascual’s conception of construction differs from CxG and is closer to the LCM in the sense that constructions are viewed from a holistic perspective in which the meaning of the construction is always larger than the meaning of the building blocks conforming it. What is more, Periñán-Pascual (2013) shares ^[65]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez’s (2013) claim that for any linguistic pattern to be regarded as a construction some essential properties have to be met. Thus, the following criteria

28
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : must be fulfilled by a form-meaning pairing for it to be regarded as a construction: in a construction, “form consists of a morphosyntactic arrangement of elements” ; productivity, that is, the form-meaning pairing is productive if “it gives rise to a pattern whose formal part can be realized by predicates that obey the requirements of the meaning part of the pairing”; bi-univocity, that is, the relationship between form and meaning is bi-univocal in the sense that “form cues for meaning and meaning is realized by form”; and replicability, which accounts for the fact that a construction can be strictly invariably reproduced by other competent speakers with all its meaning implications in similar contexts (^[66]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, 2013: 237).

29
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : n pounded the nail flat into the wall. Similarly, ^[71]Fumero and Díaz (2017) support this theoretical assumption and claim that the term ‘kernel construct’ should be restricted to those structures listed in the Lexicon, which would allow us to establish the difference with ‘non-kernel constructions’, which are “stored and described in the form of constructional schemata” (^[72]Fumero & Díaz, 2017: 36 ) at the different levels of the Construction within the Grammaticon.

30
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Bearing in mind the computationally-based notion of construction presented in Section 2 and the inadequacy of Levin’s taxonomy for parsing, alternations have been substituted for constructional schemata, since the former are based on the modification of an input structural pattern and its derivation into a different one. However, the parser only recognizes the input text, in this case, a constructional pattern, so what the parser requires is:

31
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The locative intransitive construction is drastically different from the locative construction in that the verbs they contain are inherently intransitive verbs (monovalent) that appear with predicative locative prepositional phrases (adjuncts) which take as their argument the complete event which they participate in. The holistic construction changes the original Aktionsart into states in all cases, independently of the type of Aktionsart class ascribed to the three different verb classes participating in this L1-construction: states, as in example (5 ), semelfactives, as in (7), or activities, as in example (9). In all cases, however, the output Aktionsart of the construction will be ‘state’, as in (6), (8) and (10).

32
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The intransitive locative construction allows the locative argument (adjunct) to be the subject of the structure as a result of marked macrorole assignment following the Actor-Undergoer Macrorole Assignment Hierarchy (^[89]Van Valin, 2005). The fact that there is a case of marked macrorole assignment triggers the realization of the other non-selected potential macrorole argument (the original Theme) as a non-macrorole argument encoded as a ‘with’-phrase. In [90]Figure 3 below, you can see the CLS and the COREL scheme for this construction in FunGramKB:

33
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The image impression construction, illustrated in (12), will upgrade the location adjunct by adding it to the construction as a core argument (‘the shells’) (criterion (b)) with a direct object function and an Undergoer value, which implies the shift of the status of the original core argument (‘questions’) that is now realised as an oblique ‘with’ prepositional phrase, signalling it as a possible (though unrealised) candidate for Undergoer status. [92]Figure 4 shows the CLS and the COREL scheme for this construction:

34
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : The location subject construction also involves a change of Aktionsart class, since ‘fit’ verbs in the kernel construct are causative states (where we have an activity predicate causing a state: x does something that causes y be in z), whereas the L-1 construction codifies states with two arguments: the first argument position (‘a large cafeteria’ in (16 )) is a location argument whose capacity is specified by the second argument (‘300 people’ in (16)). In terms of macrorole assignment, and following the default Actor selection principle, the highest ranking argument in the logical structure must be assigned Actor (the participant responsible for the state of affairs, i.e. the logical subject), and the lowest ranking argument must be assigned Undergoer (the logical object in the state of affairs) following the Undergoer selection principle for default linking (^[95]Van Valin, 2005).

35
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Bergen, B. K. & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive groundings and theoretical extensions (Constructional approaches to language 3 ) (pp. 147-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [99]Links ]

36
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, F. J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp . 231-270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins . [ [121]Links ]

37
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : ^1Steels (2017) revises the research programmes that have attempted to provide computational implementations that account for the way constructions are used in the parsing and production of utterances: Embodied Construction Grammar (Bergen & Chang, 2005 ), Fluid Construction Grammar (Steels, 2011), Sign-based Construction Grammar (Boas & Sag, 2012) and Template Construction Grammar (Barres & Lee, 2014).

38
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines551 - : The aim of this article is to account for the analysis of the reality represented in the construction of discourse, from a case of a qualitative etnographic study which blends into a double aspect: the disappearance of a minor which ended in tragedy and the supposed guilt of an immigrant belonging to the black race in a murder which had a wide spread media impact . Thus, in this discourse analysis and categorization analysis of the actants, we will try to clarify the different features, components and treatment in the official sites of Twitter and Facebook of four Spanish mass media: @telecincoes, @laSextaNoticias, @NoticiasCuatro and @A3Noticias. The results bring to light how discourse in social networks has a much wider projection if it is based on aporophobia, revealing itself as a ‘parallel trial’ normalized before certain social events, approach which is boosted by mass media itself.

39
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines562 - : Mihatsch, W. (2018b). From ad hoc category to ad hoc categorization: The proceduralization of Argentinian Spanish tipo. En C. Mauri & A. Sansò (Eds.), Linguistic strategies for the construction of ad hoc categories: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives (pp . 147-176). Berlín/Boston: de Gruyter. [ [292]Links ]

40
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines565 - : This paper focuses on analyzing the meaning and pragmatic functions of construction [o] eso dicen (‘[or] so they say’), as well as observing the discursive patterns in which it appears. The departure point is the consideration that this construction conveys indirect evidential meanings of different degrees of accessibility or intersubjectivity (reportative and folklore), and therefore its use could be related to the function of pragmatic attenuation activated by the displacement of the origin of the enunciation. In the empirical part of this work, we analyze 65 examples recovered in the analysis of five oral and one written corpus. The results of the study indicate that most of the uses of this construction fulfill strategic mitigating purposes related to the protection of images. One of the key parameters to describe the discursive behavior of this construction is the level on which it performs: it behaves differently in monological contexts than in dialogical ones .

Evaluando al candidato construction:


2) argument: 12 (*)
3) grammar: 12 (*)
4) ruiz: 9
7) discourse: 8 (*)
8) locative: 8 (*)
9) mendoza-ibáñez: 7
11) linguistic: 7 (*)
12) fungramkb: 7 (*)
19) speaker: 6 (*)
20) lexical: 6 (*)

construction
Lengua: eng
Frec: 488
Docs: 160
Nombre propio: 4 / 488 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 8
Frec. en corpus ref. en eng: 296
Puntaje: 8.742 = (8 + (1+6.37503943134693) / (1+8.93369065495224)));
Rechazado: muy disperso; muy común;

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
construction
: 5. Caused-Motion Construction (‘Peter sneezed the napkin off the table’)
: Achugar, M. & Schleppegrell, M. (2005). Beyond connectors: The construction of cause in history textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 16(3), 298-318.
: Achugar, M. (2008). What we remember. The construction of memory in military discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Allan, S. (1998). News from NowHere: Televisual News Discourse and the Construction of Hegemony. En Bell, A. y Garret, P. (Eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse. Blackwell Publishers: 105-141.
: Amossy, R. (Ed.) (1999). Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l’ethos. Laussane: Delachaux y Niestlé.
: Atkinson, P. (2004). The discursive construction of competence and responsibility in medical collegial talk. Communication & Medicine, 1(1), 13-23.
: BLOOME D. y EGAN-ROBERTSON, A. (1993). The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons. International Reading Association. 28,4.
: Bamberg, M., de Fina, A. & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and identity construction. En S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 177-199). Nueva York: Springer.
: Barres, V. & Lee, J. (2014). Template construction grammar: From visual scene description to language comprehension and agrammatism. Neuroinformatics, 12(1), 18-208.
: Bartha, P. (2010). By parallel reasoning: The construction and evaluation of analogical arguments. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Bazerman, C. (2001). Nuclear information: One rhetorical moment in the construction of the information age. Written communication 18:3, 259-295.
: Bergen, B. & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 168-190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Berman, R. & Nir, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: a developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 79-120.
: Berman, R. & Ravid, D. (2009). Becoming a literate language user. Oral and written text construction across adolescence. En D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 92-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Berman, R. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 735-771.
: Beyer, R. (1990). Psychologische Untersuchungen zur Gestaltung von Instruktionstexten [Psychological studies concerning the construction of instructional texts]. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 39, 69-75.
: Boas, H. & Sag, I. (Eds.) (2012). Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
: Boas, H. (2011). Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics, 49(6), 1271-1303.
: Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A. (Eds.) (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar. Palo Alto Ca.: CSLI Publications.
: Bruner, J. S. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.
: CARTER, M. (1988) "Stasis and kairos: Principles of social construction in classical rhetoric", Rhetoric Review, 1, 97-112.
: Channell, J. (1999). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 38-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Clary-Lemon, J. (2010). ‘We’re not ethnic, we’re Irish!’: Oral histories and the discursive construction of immigrant identity. Discourse & Society, 21(1), 5-25.
: Clements, J. C. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of the Spanish construction. Linguistics, 26(5), 779-822.
: Clements, J. C. (2005). ´Ser´ and ´estar´ in the predicate adjective construction. In J. C. Clements & J. Yoon (Eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse, and transitivity (pp. 161-202). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
: Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (2001). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press .
: Conway, M. & Pleydell-Pearce, C. (2000). The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system. Psychological Review, 107(2), 261-288.
: Cornish, F. (2003). The roles of (written) text and anaphor type distribution in the construction of discourse. Text, 23(1), 1-26.
: Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Csepeli, G. & Simon, D. (2004). Construction of Roma identity in Eatern and Central Europe: Perception and Self-identification. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(1), 129-150.
: De Miguel. E. (2015). Lexical agreement processes: On the construction of verbal aspect. En J. L. Cifuentes Honrubia, E. Barrajón & S. Rodríguez Rosique (Eds.), Verbal classes and aspect (pp. 131-152). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Delbecque, N. (1997). The Spanish copulas ser and estar. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 247-270). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Dodge, E. & Petruck, M. (2014). Representing caused motion in Embodied Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the ACL 2014 workshop on semantic parsing (pp. 39-44). Baltimore: Maryland.
: Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. Construction, administration, and processing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Ehrlich, M-F. (1999) Metacognitive monitoring of text cohesion in children. En H. van Oostendorp y S. Goldman (Eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, LEA. 281-302.
: Ellis, N. C. (2013). Second language acquisition. En G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Epstein, R. (2002). The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(4), 333–378.
: Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
: Ferreiro, E. & Zucchermaglio, C. (1996). Children’s use of puctuation marks: The case of quoted speech. En C. Pontecorvo, M. Orsolini, B. Burge & L. Resnick (Eds.), Children's Early Text Construction. Moahwah (pp. 177-205). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Fillmore, C. (2006). The articulation of lexicon and constructicon. Plenary talk at the Fourth International Construction Grammar Conference (pp. 53-63). University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
: Fillmore, C. (2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of EURALEX13 (pp. 49-68). Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
: Fillmore, C., Lee-Goldman, R. & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309-372). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
: Fivush, R. & Haden, C. (2003). Autobiographical memory and construction on a narrative self. Developmental and cultural perspectives. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Flower, L. (1988) The construction of purpose in writing ad reading. College English, 50, 528-50.
: Flower, L. (1994) The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
: Frizelle, P. & Fletcher, P. (2014). Relative clause construction in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 49, 255-264. Doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12070.
: Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. (2009). Specialised lexicography for learners: Specific proposals for the construction of pedagogically-oriented printed business dictionaries. Hermes. Journal of Language and Business Communication, 42, 167-188.
: Garrod, S. y Sanford, A. (1999) Incrementality in discourse understanding. En H. van Oostendorp y S. Goldman (Eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, LEA. 3-28.
: Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/Londres: The University of Chicago Press.
: Goldberg, A. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions, a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
: Goldman, S., Varma, S. & Coté, N. (1996). Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward "smarter" and fexible models of text comprehension. En B. Britton & A. Graesser (Eds.), Models of text comprehension (pp. 73-113). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Goodwin, C. (2006). Retrospective and prospective orientation in the construction of argumentative moves. Text & Talk, 26(4-5), 443-461.
: Graesser, A.C. & Bertus, L. (1998). The construction of causal inferences while reading expository texts on science and technology. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 247-269.
: Gunnarsson, B-L., Linell, P., & Nordberg, B. (Eds.) (1997). The Construction of Professional Discourse. Londres, Nueva York: Longman.
: Gyselinck, V. & Tardieu, H. (1999). The role of illustrations in text comprehension. En H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 195-218). N. J.: Erlbaum.
: Halliday, M. A. K. (1990). The construction of knowledge and value in the grammar of scientific discourse: Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species. In C. De Stasio, M. Gotti & R. Bonadei (Eds.), La rappresentazione verbale e icónica (pp. 57-80). Milano: Guerini.
: Hamilton, H. E. (1996). Intratextuality, intertextuality and the construction of identity as patient in Alzheimer’s disease. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 16(1), 61-90.
: Henríquez, R. & Ruiz, M. (2014). Chilean students learn to think historically: Construction of historical causation through the use of evidence in writing. Linguistics and Education, 25(1), 145-157.
: Higgins, F. R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Nueva York: Garland.
: Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Hunston, S. & Sinclair, J. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. En S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 74-101). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20 (3), 341-367.
: Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
: Ivanic, R. (2005). The discoursal construction of writer identity. En R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 391-416). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
: Ivanič, R. (1994). I is for interpersonal: Discoursal construction of writer identities and the teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education, 6(1), 3-15.
: Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity. The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Ivanič, R. (2005). The discoursal construction of writer identity. En R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literary research (pp. 391-416). Cresskill, N. J: Hampton Press.
: Ivanič, R. 1998. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
: Jiang, L. & Huang, K. (2015). The efficacy of structural priming on the acquisition of double object construction by Chinese EFL learners. Higher Education Studies, 5(5), 38-49.
: Journal of Construction Engineering & Management American College of Cardiology Language, Cognition and Neuroscience
: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981). The grammatical marking of thematic structure in the development of language production. En W. Deutsch (Ed.), The Child’s Construction of Language (pp. 121-147). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
: Kipper, K., Trang Dang, H. & Palmer, M. (2000). Class-based construction of a verb lexicon. En R. Engelmore & H. Hirsh (Eds.), The 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 691-696). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
: Langston, M. & Trabasso, T. (1999). Modeling causal integration and availability of information during comprehension of narrative texts. En H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 29-69). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
: Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
: Leerssen, J. T. (2007). Imagology: History and method. In M. Beller & J. T. Leerssen (Eds.), Imagology: The cultural construction and literary representation of national characters: A critical survey (pp. 17-32). Amsterdam-New York, NY: Rodopi.
: Lorés-Sanz, R. (2011a). The construction of the author’s voice in academic writing: The Interplay of Cultural and Disciplinary Factors. Text & Talk, 31, 173-193.
: López de Abiada, J. M. (2007a). Spaniards. In M. Beller & J. T. Leerssen (Eds.), Imagology: The cultural construction and literary representation of national characters: A critical survey (pp. 242-247). Amsterdam-New York, NY: Rodopi.
: MYERS, G. (1997). "Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biology Articles", en R. A. Harris (ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Case Studies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp 187-215.
: Magliano, J., Zwaan, R. y Graesser, A. (1999) The role of situational continuity in narrative understanding. En H. van Oostendorp y S. Goldman (Eds.) The construction of mental representations during reading. Mahwah, LEA. 219-245.
: Maingueneau, D. (1999). Ethos, scénographie, incorporation. En R. Amossy (Ed.), Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l’éthos (pp. 75-102). Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
: Mairal, R. & Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez, F. J. (2008). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing Constructions (pp. 153-198). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Maldonado, R. (2007). Soft causatives in Spanish. In N. Delbecque & B. Cornillie (Eds.), On interpreting construction schemas: From action and motion to Transitivity and Causality (pp. 229-260). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Marquez, M. (2010). The public and private sphere in parliamentary debate: The construction of the addresser in the Portuguese Parliament. In C. Ilie (Ed.), European Parliaments under Scrutiny (pp. 79-108). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Martin, J. (2000). Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English. Em S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 142-175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Mason, P. (2007). America: Native South Americans. In M. Beller & J. T. Leerss (Eds.), Imagology: The cultural construction and literary representation of national characters: A critical survey (pp. 86-89). Amsterdam-New York, NY: Rodopi.
: McAdams, D. (2003). Identity and the life story. En R. Fivush & C. Haden. (Eds.), Autobiographical memory and construction on a narrative self. Developmental and cultural perspectives (pp.187-223). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: McNeill, K., Lizotte, J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R., (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
: Merino, M. E. & Tileaga, C. (2010). The construction of ethnic minority identity: A discursive psychological approach. Discourse and Society, 22(1), 1-16.
: Mihatsch, W. (2007). The construction of vagueness: "Sort-of" expressions in Romances languages. Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Moirand, S. (2004). L’impossible clôture des corpus médiatiques ou la construction des observables entre catégorisation et contextualisation. TRANEL, 40, 71-92.
: Moyano, E. I. (2016). Theme in English and Spanish: Different means of realization for the same textual function. En B. Clark & J. Arús (Eds.), Special Issue on Communicative Dynamism, English Text Construction, 9(1), 190-220.
: Myers, G. A. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
: Nolan, B. (2011). Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the layered structure of the Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In W. Nakamura (Ed.), New perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 64-101). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
: Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction, 5(1), 53-76.
: Oteíza, T. & Pinto, D. (2008). Agency, responsibility and silence in the construction of contemporary history in Chile and Spain. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 333-358.
: Oteíza, T. & Pinuer, C. (2013). Valorative prosody and the symbolic construction of time in historical recent national discourses. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 43-64.
: PRELLI, L. J. (1997). "The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos", en R. A. Harris (ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Case Studies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp 87-104.
: Paulus, T. M. & Roberts, K. R. (2018). Crowdfunding a ‘‘real-life superhero”: The construction of worthy bodies in medical campaign narratives. Discourse, Context & Media, 21, 64-72. [233]https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.008
: Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. En H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Pontecorvo, C. & Arcidiacono, F. (2016). The dialogic construction of justifications and arguments in a seven-year-old child within a democratic family. Language and Dialogue, 6(2), 306-328.
: Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Londres: Sage.
: Pustejovsky, J. (2001). Type construction and the Logic of Concepts. En P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.), The language of word meaning (pp. 91-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Mairal-Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355-400.
: Sag, I. (2011). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69-202). Stanford: CSLI.
: Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 13, 141-156.
: Schraw, G. (2000). Reader beliefs and meaning construction in narrative text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 96-106.
: Shah, P., Mayer, R. & Hegarty, M. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 690-702.
: Sheldon, E. (2009). From one I to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes 28(4), 251-265.
: Steels, L. & van Trijp, R. (2011). How to make Construction Grammars fluid and robust. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 301-330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Steels, L. (Ed.) (2011). Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
: Steels, L. (Ed.) (2017). Basics of Fluid Construction Grammar [on line]. Retrieved from: [125]https://www.fcg-net.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/basics-of-fcg.pdf.
: Therriault, D., Rinck, M. & Zwaan, R. (2006). Assessing the influence of dimensional focus during situation model construction. Memory & Cognition, 34, 78-89.
: Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford, Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
: Torrent, T., Meireles Lage, L., Fernandes Sampaio, T., da Silva Tavares, T. & da Silva Santos, E. (2014). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 33-50.
: Valle, E. (1997). A scientific community and its texts: A historical discourse study. En B. Gunnarsson, P. Linell & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 76-98). Essex: Longman.
: Van Trijp, R. (2011). A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 115-145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
: Zwaan, R. Langston, M. & Graesser, A. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292-297.
: Zwaan, R., Magliano, J. & Graesser, A. (1995). Dimensions of situation-model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386-397.
: van Dijk, T. (1999). Context models in discourse processing. En H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 123-148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.