1 Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, Mouton

2 Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press

3 Langacker, R.W. (1987/1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vols I & II), Stanford University Press

4 Fillmore, C.J. et al. (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64, 501 -538

5 Wierzbicka, A. (1988) The Semantics of Grammar, John Benjamins Publishing

6 Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form, Cambridge University Press

7 Goldberg, A.E. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago University Press

8 Gleitman, L. et al. (1996) `Similar' and similar concepts. Cognition 58,

9 Thompson, S.A. (1990) Information flow and dative shift in english discourse. In Development and Diversity: Linguistic Variation Across Time and Space (Edmondson, J., ed.), pp. 239 -253, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas

10 Culicover, P.W. and Jackendoff, R. (1999) The view from the periphery: the English comparative correlative. Linguist. Inq. 30, 543 -571

11 Zwicky, A. (1994) Dealing out meaning: fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguist. Soc. 20, 611--625

12 Williams, E. (1994) Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92, 7--34

13 Jackendoff, R. (1997) Twistin' the night away. Language 73, 534 -559

14 Sag, I.A. (1997) English relative clause constructions. J. Linguist. 33,

15 Webelhuth, G. and Ackerman, F. (1998) A Theory of Predicates, CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press

16 Iwata, S. (1998) A Lexical Network Approach to Verbal Semantics, Kaitakusha, Tokyo

17 Shibatani, M. (1999) Dative subject constructions 22 years later. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 29, 45 -76

18 Culicover, P.W. (1999) Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases in Syntax, Oxford University Press

19 van Valin, R. Jr (1998) The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure (Tomasello, M., ed.), pp. 221 -249, Erlbaum

20 Croft, W. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar, Oxford University Press

21 Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of Language, Oxford University Press

22 Bybee, J. (2001) Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson (Bybee, J. and Noonan, M., eds) pp. 1 -17, John Benjamins

23 Booij, G. (2002) Constructional idioms, morphology, and the dutch lexicon. J. Germanic Linguist. 144, 301 -329

24 Langacker, R.W. (1988) A usage-based model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (Rudzka-Ostyn, B., ed.), pp. 127 -161, John Benjamins

25 Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (2000) Usage Based Models of Grammar, CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press

26 Israel, M. et al. (2000) From states to events: the acquisition of english passive participles. Cogn. Linguist. 11, 1--27

27 Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. (2001) The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a usage based approach to the development of grammatical constructions. Cogn. Linguist. 12,

28 Verhagen, A. (2002) From parts to wholes and back again. Cogn. Linguist. 1, 13 -14

29 Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press (in press)

30 Kay, P. and Fillmore, C.J. (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75, 1--34

31 Michaelis, L.A. and Lambrecht, K. (1996) Toward a construction-based model of language function: the case of nominal extraposition. Language 72, 215 -247

32 Lambrecht, K. (1990) `What, me worry?' Mad Magazine sentences revisited. Proc. 16th Annu. Meet. Berkeley Linguist. Soc., pp. 215 -228, University of California

33 Goldberg, A.E. Argument realization: the role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions (Fried, M. and O ˜ stman, J.O., eds.), John Benjamins (in press)

34 Erteschik-Shir, N. (1979) Discourse constraints on dative movement. In Syntax and Semantics (Laberge, S. and Sankoff, G., eds) pp. 441 -467, Academic Press.

35 Wasow, T. (2002) Postverbal Behavior, CSLI Publications

36 Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press

37 Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht

38 Elman, J. et al. (1996) Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, MIT Press

39 Pullum, G.K. and Scholz, B.C. (2002) Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguist. Rev. 19, 9--50

40 Goldberg, A.E. (1999) The Emergence of argument structure semantics. In The Emergence of Language (MacWhinney, B., ed.), pp. 197 -212, Erlbaum

41 Israel, M. (2002) Consistency and creativity in first language acquisition. Proc. Berkeley Linguist. Soc.,p.29

42 Lieven, E.V.M. et al. (1997) Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. J. Child Lang. 24, 187 -219

43 Tomasello, M. (2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209 -253

44 Saffran, J.R. (2001) The use of predictive dependencies in language learning. J. Mem. Lang. 44, 493 -515

45 Birner, B. and Ward, G. (1998) Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English, John Benjamins

46 Zhang, N. (1998) The interactions between construction meaning and lexical meaning. Linguistics 36, 957 -980

47 Foley, W.A. and van Valin, R. Jr (1984) Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press

48 Garry, J. and Rubino, C., eds. (2001) Facts about the World's Languages: An Encyclopedia of the World's Major Languages Past and Present. H.W. Wilson

49 Haiman, J. (1985) Iconicity in Syntax, Cambridge University Press

50 Givo ’n, T. (1991) Isomorphism in the grammatical code: cognitive and biological considerations. Studies Lang. 1, 85 -114

51 Kemmer, S. and Verhagen, A. (2002) The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Mouton Classics: From Syntax to Cognition, From Phonology to Text, pp. 451 -491, Mouton de Gruyter

52 Kluender, R. (1998) On the distinction between strong and weak islands: a processing perspective. Syntax Semantics 29, 241 -279

53 Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. (1993) Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Lang. Cogn. Process. 8, 573 -633

54 Erteschik-Shir, N. (1998) The syntax-focus structure interface. In Syntax and Semantics Vol. 29: The Limits of Syntax (Culicover, P. and McNally, L., eds.), pp. 211 -240, Academic Press

55 Hawkins, J. (1994) A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency, Cambridge University Press

56 Yamashita, H. and Chang, F. (2001) `Long before short' preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81, B45 -B55

57 Baker, M. (2003) Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives: Their Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press (in press)

58 Hauser, M.D. et al. (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569 -1579

59 Pollard, C.J. and Sag, I. (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications/Cambridge University Press

60 Goldberg, A.E. Words by default: inheritance and the Persian Complex Predicate Construction. In Mismatch: Form -Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar (Francis, E. and Michaelis, L., eds.), CSLI Publications (in press)