Belloro, Valeria. 2004. A Role and Reference Grammar Account of Third-Person Clitic Clusters in Spanish. Unpublished MA thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Cennamo, Michela. 2001. On the reorganization of voice distinctions and grammatical relations in late Latin. In Moussy, Claude (ed.), De Lingva Latina Novae Questiones (Actes du Xème Colloque International de Linguistique Latine, Paris-Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999), 51–65. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, Elke. 2008. The grammaticalization of the bekommen-passive in a RRG-perspective. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 87–145.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.Google Scholar

Eschenberg, Ardis. 2005. The Article System of Umoⁿhoⁿ (Omaha). PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gildersleeve, Basil L. and Lodge, Gonzalez. 1992. Latin Grammar. Edinburgh: Nelson.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7(1): 394–415.Google Scholar

Gonzalez Orta, Maria M. 2002. Lexical templates and syntactic variation: The syntax–semantics interface of the Old English speech verb secgan. In Usón, Ricardo Mairal and Pérez Quintero, Miguel J. (eds.), New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar, 291–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kailuweit, Rolf. 2008. Some remarks on RRG and grammaticalization: French verbal periphrases. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 69–86.Google Scholar

Kailuweit, Rolf et al. (eds.). 2008. New Applications of Role and Reference Grammar. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony S. 2001. Syntactic change. In Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 699–729. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 2001. How to Set Parameters. Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lindemann, Hans and Färber, Hans. 2003. Griechische Grammatik. Teil II: Satzlehre, Dialektgrammatik und Metrik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2002. On representing syntactic change: Towards a theory of diachronic syntax. Suvremena lingvistika 53–54: 57–72. http://hrcak.srce.hr/16335.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2008. Patterns of grammaticalization and the layered structure of the clause. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 45–57.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2012. Las construcciones reflexivas del croata desde una perspectiva histórica. In Mairal, Ricardo Usón, Guerrero, Lilián and Vergara, Carlos González (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 171–186. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar

Matasović, Ranko. 2014. Adnominal and verbal agreement: Areal distribution and typological correlations. Linguistic Typology 18(2): 171–214.Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura. 1993. On deviant case marking in Latin. In Van Valin, Robert D. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 311–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nicolle, Steve. 2008. Scope and the functions of be going to. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 58–68.Google Scholar

Ohori, Toshio. 1992. Diachrony in Clause Linkage and Related Issues. PhD thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY) [available on the RRG website, https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/].Google Scholar

Ohori, Toshio. 1994. Diachrony of clause linkage. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 135–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, Linda. 1995. Pivots, voice and macroroles: From Germanic to universal grammar. Australian Journal of Linguistics 15(2): 157–214.Google Scholar

Rupnik-Matasović, Maja. 2008. Case assignment in Classical Greek. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 146–156.Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wackernagel, Jakob. 2009. Lectures on Syntax (edited and translated by David Langslow). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wiemer, Björn. 2008a. Applications of RRG in diachronic syntax: Overview and open questions. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 2–44.Google Scholar

Wiemer, Björn. 2008b. Changing relations between PSA-selection, macroroles and case assignment: Insights from the diachrony of Slavic, Baltic and other Indo-European languages. In Kailuweit et al. (eds.), 157–203.Google Scholar

Wilkins, David. 1991. The semantics, pragmatics and diachronic development of ‘associated motion’ in Mparntwe Arrernte. Buffalo Papers in Linguistics 91(1): 207–257.Google Scholar

Aksu-Koç, Ayhan. 1988. The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aksu-Koç, Ayhan. 1998. The role of input vs. universal predispositions in the emergence of the tense-aspect morphology: Evidence from Turkish. First Language 18: 255–280.Google Scholar

Antinucci, Francesco and Miller, Ruth. 1976. How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language 3: 167–190.Google Scholar

Bauer, Patricia. J. 1996. What do infants recall of their lives? Memory for specific events by one- to two-year-olds. American Psychologist 51: 29–41.Google Scholar

Bauer, Patricia. J. 2007. Remembering the Times of Our Lives: Memory in Infancy and Beyond. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1973. Early Syntactic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1981. Notes for the Nijmegen Workshop. MPI, Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1985. What shapes children’s grammars? In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2, 1257–1319. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa. 1990. Mapping semantic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28: 1253–1289.Google Scholar

Bronckart, Jean-Paul and Sinclair, Hermina. 1973. Time, tense, and aspect. Cognition 2: 107–130.Google Scholar

Braine, Martin D. S. 1976. Children’s first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar

Braine, Martin D. S. 1992. What sort of innate structure is needed to ‘bootstrap’ into syntax? Cognition 45: 77–100.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Choi, Soonja. 1991. Early acquisition of epistemic meanings of Korean: A study of sentence-ending suffixes in the spontaneous speech of three children. First Language 11: 93–120.Google Scholar

Choi, Soonja. 1995. The development of epistemic sentence-ending modal forms and functions in Korean children. In Bybee, Joan and Fleichman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clancy, Patricia. 1985. The acquisition of Japanese. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1: The data, 373–524. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert, (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, William J. 1978. Development of time concepts in children. In Ruse, H. W. and Lipsitt, Lewis P. (eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 12, 267–298. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Liang, Lu Yao, Wu, Dandan and Li, Hui. 2019. Chinese preschoolers’ acquisition of temporal adverbs indicating past, present, and future: a corpus-based study. Journal of Child Language 46: 760–784.Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena V. M., Pine, Julian M. and Baldwin, Gillian. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24: 189–219.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian and Snow, Catherine. 1985. The child language data system (CHILDES). Journal of Child Language 1: 271–296.Google Scholar

Mandler, Jean M. 1990. A new perspective on cognitive development in infancy. American Scientist 78: 236–243.Google Scholar

Meisel, Jürgen M. 1994. Getting FAT: Finiteness, agreement, and tense in early grammars. In Meisel, Jürgen M. (ed.), Bilingual First Language Acquisition: French and German Development, 89–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Newcombe, Nora and Huttenlocher, Janelle. 2003. Making Space: The Development of Spatial Representation and Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Piaget, Jean. 1954. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Piaget, Jean. 1971. The Child’s Conception of Time. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Review of Slobin, Cross-linguistic evidence for language making capacity, and Bowerman, What shapes children’s grammar? Journal of Child Language 16: 456–463.Google Scholar

Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rovee-Collier, Carolyn K. 1997. Dissociations in infant memory: Rethinking the development of implicit and explicit memory. Psychological Review 104: 467–498.Google Scholar

Rowland, Caroline F. and Pine, Julian M.. 2000. Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘what children do know?’ Journal of Child Language 27: 157–182.Google Scholar

Rowland, Caroline F. and Pine, Julian M.. 2003. The development of inversion in wh-questions: A reply to Van Valin. Journal of Child Language 30: 197–212.Google Scholar

Sano, Tetsuya and Hyams, Nina. 1994. Agreement, finiteness, and the development of null agreements. Proceedings of NELS 24: 543–558.Google Scholar

Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1993. Inherent aspect and the acquisition of tense-aspect morphology in Japanese. In Nakajima, Heizo and Otsu, Yukio (eds.), Argument Structure: Its Syntax and Acquisition, 185–211. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1998. The emergence of tense-aspect morphology in Japanese: Universal predisposition. First Language 18: 281–310.Google Scholar

Shirai, Yasuhiro and Andersen, Roger W.. 1995. The acquisition of tense/aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71: 743–762.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1985. Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2, 1175–1256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 2001. Form–function relations: How do children find out what they are? In Bowerman, Melissa and Levinson, Stephen C. (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, 406–449. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smoczyńska, Magdalena. 1985. The acquisition of Polish. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1, 595–686. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Stephany, Ursula. 1986. Modality. In Fletcher, Paul and Garman, Michael (eds.), Language Acquisition, 375–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stoll, Sabine. 1998. The role of lexical Aktionsart for the acquisition of Russian aspect. First Language 18: 351–378.Google Scholar

Spelke, Elizabeth S. 1991. Physical knowledge in infancy: Reflections on Piaget’s theory. In Carey, Susan and Gelman, Rochel (eds.), The Epigenesis of Mind: Essays on Biology and Cognition, 133–170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Spelke, Elizabeth S. 2000. Core knowledge. American Psychologist 55: 1233–1243.Google Scholar

Toivainen, Jorma. 1980. Inflectional Affixes Used by Finnish-Speaking Children Aged 1–3 Years. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2000. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 61–82.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1991. Functionalist linguistic theory and language acquisition. First Language 11: 7–40.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1992. An overview of ergative phenomena and their implications for language acquisition. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 3, 15–38. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, Robert (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 221–249. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2002. The development of subject–auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language 29: 161–175.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. The Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M. 1986. Tense and aspect. In Fletcher, Paul and Garman, Michael (eds.), Language Acquisition, 356–374. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M. 1990. Neutralization and the concept of subject in child Polish. Linguistics 11: 1332–1348.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M. 2002. The first language acquisition of tense and aspect. In Salaberry, Rafael and Shirai, Yasuhiro (eds.), The L2 Acquisition of Tense-Aspect Morphology, 25–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard, M. 2009. One-to-one mapping of temporal and spatial relations. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K. and Özçalişkan, S. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 69–80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M. 2014a. Developing temporal systems. Psychology of Language and Communication 18(2): 126–142.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M. 2014b. Future temporal reference in child language. In De Brabanter, Philippe, Kissine, Mikhail and Sharifzadeh, Saghie (eds.), Future Times: Future Tenses, 87–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M. and Buczowska, Ewa. 1987. The emergence of temporal adverbs in child Polish. First Language: 7, 217–229.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M., Pawlak, Aleksandra and Carapella, Jenell. 2004. Syntactic–semantic interface in the acquisition of verb morphology. Journal of Child Language 31: 31–60.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M., Pawlak, Aleksandra and Hoffman, Karen. 2009. Finiteness systems and lexical aspect in child Polish and English. Linguistics 47(6): 1321–1350.Google Scholar

Weist, Richard M., Wysocka, Hanna, Witkowska-Stadnik, Katarzyna, Buczowska, Ewa and Konieczna, Emilia. 1984. The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language 11: 347–374.Google Scholar

Baynes, Kathleen and Gazzaniga, Michael S.. 1988. Right hemisphere language: Insight into normal language mechanisms? In Plum, F. (ed.), Language, Communication and the Brain, 117–126. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar

Blank, Idan, Balewski, Zuzanna, Mahowald, Kyle and Fedorenko, Evelina. 2016. Syntactic processing is distributed across the language system. NeuroImage 127: 307–323.Google Scholar

Bock, Kay. 1995. Sentence production: From mind to mouth. In Miller, J. L. and Eimas, P. D. (eds.), Speech, Language and Communication (2nd ed.), 181–216. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bock, Kathryn and Levelt, Willem. 1994. Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 945–984. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Boland, Julie, Tanenhaus, Michael, Garnsey, Susan and Carlson, Greg. 1995. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 774–806.Google Scholar

Bornkessel, Ina and Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2006. The extended Argument Dependency Model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113: 787–821.Google Scholar

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2013. Reconciling time, space and function: A new dorsal–ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 125: 60–76.Google Scholar

Brennan, Jonathan, Nir, Yuval, Hasson, Uri, Malach, Rafael, Heeger, David J. and Pylkkänen, Liina. 2012. Syntactic structure building in the anterior temporal lobe during natural story listening. Brain and Language 120: 163–173.Google Scholar

Brodmann, Korbinian. 1909. Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre der Grosshirnrinde. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar

Clifton, Charles Jr. and Frazier, Lynn. 1989. Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In Carlson, Greg and Tanenhaus, Michael (eds.), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing, 273–317. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Davis, Anthony and Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 76: 56–91.Google Scholar

Dronkers, Nina F., Wilkins, David P., Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., Redfern, Brenda B. and Jaeger, Jeri J.. 1994. A reconsideration of the brain areas involved in the disruption of morphosyntactic comprehension. Brain and Language 47(3): 461–463.Google Scholar

Dronkers, Nina F., Wilkins, David P., Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., Redfern, Brenda B. and Jaeger, Jeri J.. 2004. Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition 92: 145–177.Google Scholar

Federenko, Evelina, Blank, Idan A., Siegelmann, Mathew and Mineroff, Zachary. 2020. Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network. Cognition 203: 1–19.Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda and Patson, Nikole D.. 2007. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1( 1–2): 71–83.Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela D. 2009. Pathways to language: Fiber tracts in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13: 175–181.Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela D. 2012. The cortical language circuit: From auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16: 262–268.Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela D., Meyer, Martin and Yves von Cramon, D.. 2000. Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical information. Brain and Language 74: 289–300.Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela D., Rüschemeyer, Shirley-Ann, Hahne, Anja and Fiebach, Christian J.. 2003. The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: Localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cerebral Cortex 13: 170–177.Google Scholar

Gazzaniga, Michael S. 1983. Right hemisphere language after brain bisection: A 20-year perspective. American Psychologist 38: 525–537.Google Scholar

Gazzaniga, Michael S. 2000. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123: 1293–1326.Google Scholar

Gazzaniga, Michael S. 2005. Forty-five years of split-brain research and still going strong. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 653–659.Google Scholar

Gazzaniga, Michael S. and Hillyard, Steven A.. 1971. Language and speech capacity of the right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia 9: 273–280.Google Scholar

Herrmann, Björn, Maess, Burkhard, Hahne, Anja, Schröger, Erich and Friederici, Angela D.. 2011. Syntactic and auditory spatial processing in the human temporal cortex: An MEG study. NeuroImage 57: 624–633.Google Scholar

Hickok, Gregory and Poeppel, David. 2004. Dorsal and ventral streams: A framework for understanding aspects of the functional anatomy of language. Cognition 92: 67–99.Google Scholar

Hickok, Gregory and Poeppel, David. 2007. The cortical organization of speech perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8: 393–402.Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Dan. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura. 2010. Parsing Beyond Context-Free Grammars. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura, Osswald, Rainer and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2013. Tree wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar. In Morrill, G. and Nederhof, M.-J. (eds.), Formal Grammar: Proceedings of the 17th and 18th International Conferences (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8036), 175–190. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Kaplan, Ronald and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Koenig, Jean-Pierre and Mauner, Gail. 2003. Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89: 67–103.Google Scholar

Lau, Ellen F., Phillips, Colin and Poeppel, David. 2008. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Review Neuroscience 9: 920–933.Google Scholar

Linebarger, Marcia C., Schwartz, Myrna F. and Saffran, Eleanor M.. 1983. Sensitivity to grammatical structures in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition 13: 361–392.Google Scholar

Lu, Ching-Ching, Bates, Elizabeth, Li, Ping, Tzeng, Ovid, Hung, Daisy, Tsai, Chih-Hao et al. 2000. Judgements of grammaticality in aphasia: The special case of Chinese. Aphasiology 14: 1021–1054.Google Scholar

Lukatela, Katerina, Crain, Stephen and Shankweiler, Donald. 1988. Sensitivity to inflectional morphology in agrammatism: Investigation of a highly inflected language. Brain and Language 33: 1–15.Google Scholar

Magnusdottir, S., Fillmore, P, den Ouden, D. B., Hjaltason, H, Rorden, C, Kjartansson, O, et al. 2013. Damage to left anterior temporal cortex predicts impairment of complex syntactic processing: A lesion-symptom mapping study. Human Brain Mapping 34: 2715–2723.Google Scholar

Mazoyer, B. M., Tzourio, N., Frak, V., Syrota, A., Murayama, N., Levrier, O., Salamon, G., Dehaene, S., Cohen, L. and Mehler, J.. 1993. The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5: 467–479.Google Scholar

McKoon, Gail and Love, Jessica. 2011. Verbs in the lexicon: Why is hitting easier than breaking? Language and Cognition 3(2): 313–330.Google Scholar

Nolan, Brian and Diedrichsen, Elke (eds.). 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Obleser, Jonas, Zimmermann, Jonas, Van Meter, John and Rauschecker, Josef P.. 2007. Multiple stages of auditory speech perception reflected in event-related fMRI. Cerebral Cortex 17: 2251–2257.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2019. The neural basis of combinatory syntax and semantics. Science 366: 62–66.Google Scholar

Saur, Dorothee, Kreher, Björn W., Schnell, Susanne, Kümmerer, Dorothee, Kellmeyer, Philipp, Vry, Magnus-Sebastian, et al. 2008. Ventral and dorsal pathways for language. PNAS USA 105(46): 18035–18040.Google Scholar

Schlesewsky, Matthias and Bornkessel, Ina. 2004. On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension. Lingua 114: 1213–1234.Google Scholar

Schwartz, Myrna F., Saffran, Eleanor M. and Marin, Oscar S.. 1980. The word order problem in agrammatism: I. Comprehension. Brain and Language 10: 249–262.Google Scholar

Schwartz, Myrna F., Linebarger, Marcia C., Saffran, Eleanor M. and Pate, David S.. 1987. Syntactic transparency and sentence interpretation in aphasia. Language and Cognitive Processes 2: 85–113.Google Scholar

Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2008. How missing is the missing verb? The verb-less numeral quantifier construction in Japanese. In Van Valin, Robert (ed.), Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface, 285–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Shtyrov, Yury, Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Näätänen, Risto and Ilmoniemi, Risto J.. 2003. Grammar processing outside the focus of attention: An MEG study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15: 1195–1206.Google Scholar

Stowe, L. A. 1985. Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1: 227–245.Google Scholar

Stowe, L. A., Broere, C. A. J., Paans, A. M. J., Wijers, A. A., Mulder, G., Vaalburg, W. and Zwarts, F.. 1998. Localizing cognitive components of a complex task: sentence processing and working memory. Neuroreport 9: 2995–2999.Google Scholar

Stromswold, Karin, Caplan, David, Alpert, Nathaniel and Rauch, Scott. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52: 452–473.Google Scholar

Townsend, David J. and Bever, Thomas G.. 2001. Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Traxler, M. and Pickering, M.. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35: 454–475.Google Scholar

Turken, And U. and Dronkers, Nina F.. 2011. The neural architecture of the language comprehension network: Converging evidence from lesion and connectivity analyses. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 5: 1.Google Scholar

Tyler, L. K. and Marslen-Wilson, W.. 2008. Fronto-temporal brain systems supporting spoken language comprehension. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363: 1037–1054.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2006. Semantic macroroles and language processing. In Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Comrie, Bernard and Friederici, Angela D. (eds.), Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking: Theoretical, Typological, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, 263–301. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wang, Luming, Schlesewsky, Matthias, Bickel, Balthasar and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2009. Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes 24: 1180–1226.Google Scholar

Wulfeck, Beverly B. 1988. Grammaticality judgments and sentence comprehension in agrammatic aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 31: 72–81.Google Scholar

Wulfeck, Beverly, Bates, Elizabeth and Capasso, Rita. 1991. A crosslinguistic study of grammaticality judgments in Broca’s aphasia. Brain and Language 41: 311–336.Google Scholar

Zaidel, Eran. 1983. On multiple representations of the lexicon in the brain: The case of two hemispheres. In Studdert-Kennedy, Michael (ed.), The Psychobiology of Language, 105–122. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bladier, Tatiana, van Cranenburgh, Andreas, Evang, Kilian, Kallmeyer, Laura, Möllemann, Robin and Osswald, Rainer. 2018. RRGbank: A Role and Reference Grammar corpus of syntactic structures extracted from the Penn Treebank. In Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theory, 5–16. Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar

Bladier, Tatiana, Kallmeyer, Laura, Osswald, Rainer and Waszczuk, Jakub. 2020. Automatic extraction of tree-wrapping grammars for multiple languages. In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 55–61. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2017. The macro-event property and the layered structure of the clause. Studies in Language 41(1): 142–197.Google Scholar

Boyd, Adriane. 2007. Discontinuity revisited: An improved conversion to context-free representations. In The Linguistic Annotation Workshop at ACL 2007, 41–44. Prague, Czech Republic.Google Scholar

Crabbé, Benoit and Duchier, Denys. 2005. Metagrammar redux. In Christiansen, Henning, Skadhauge, Peter Rossen and Villadsen, Jørgen (eds.), Constraint Solving and Language Processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3438, 32–47. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Crabbé, Benoit, Duchier, Denys, Gardent, Claire, Le Roux, Joseph and Parmentier, Yannick. 2013. XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar. Computational Linguistics 39(3): 1–66.Google Scholar

Croft, William, Barðdal, Jóhanna, Hollmann, Willem, Sotirova, Violeta and Taoka, Chiaki. 2010. Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events. In Boas, Hans C. (ed.), Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar, 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Frank, Robert. 2002. Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, Jonathan and Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark. 1987. A new approach to clause structure in Role and Reference Grammar. In Davis Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 55–59. Davis, CA: University of California.Google Scholar

Joshi, Aravind K. 1985. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In Dowty, D., Karttunen, L. and Zwicky, A. (eds.), Natural Language Parsing, 206–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Joshi, Aravind K. and Schabes, Yves. 1997. Tree-adjoining grammars. In Rozenberg, Grzegorz and Salomaa, Arto (eds.), Handbook of Formal Languages, Vol. 3: Beyond Words, 69–123. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Joshi, Aravind K., Kallmeyer, Laura and Romero, Maribel. 2008. Flexible composition in LTAG: Quantifier scope and inverse linking. In Bunt, Harry and Muskens, Reinhard (eds.), Computing Meaning, Vol. 3, 233–256. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura. 1999. Tree Description Grammars and Underspecified Representations. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. Technical Report IRCS-99-08 at the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura. 2016. On the mild context-sensitivity of k-tree wrapping grammar. In Foret, Annie, Morrill, Glyn, Muskens, Reinhard, Osswald, Rainer and Pogodalla, Sylvain (eds.), Formal Grammar: 20th and 21st International Conferences, FG 2015, Barcelona, Spain, August 2015 (Revised Selected Papers. FG 2016, Bozen, Italy, August 2016, Proceedings, number 9804 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 77–93, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura and Osswald, Rainer. 2013. Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars. Journal of Language Modelling 1(2): 267–330.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura and Osswald, Rainer. 2017. Combining predicate-argument structure and operator projection: Clause structure in Role and Reference Grammar. In Kuhlmann, Marco and Scheffler, Tatjana (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+13), 61–70. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura, Osswald, Rainer and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2013. Tree wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar. In Morrill, Glyn and Nederhof, Mark-Jan (eds.), Formal Grammar (FG 2012/2013), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8036, 175–190. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Laura, Lichte, Timm, Osswald, Rainer and Petitjean, Simon. 2016. Argument linking in LTAG: A constraint-based implementation with XMG. In Chiang, David and Koller, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+12), 48–57. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Kanazawa, Makoto. 2016. Multidimensional trees and a Chomsky-Schützenberger-Weir representation theorem for simple context-free tree grammars. Journal of Logic and Computation 26(5): 1469–1516.Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony. 1987. Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Manaster-Ramer, Alexis (ed.), The Mathematics of Language, 134–172. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nolan, Brian. 2004. First steps toward a computational RRG. In Proceedings of the International Role and Reference Grammar Conference 2004, 196–223. Institute of Technology Blanchardstown, Dublin.Google Scholar

Osswald, Rainer. 2021. Activities, accomplishments and causation. In Robert, D. Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), Challenges in the Analysis of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: A Role and Reference Grammar Perspective, 3–30. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Osswald, Rainer and Kallmeyer, Laura. 2018. Towards a formalization of Role and Reference Grammar. In Kailuweit, Rolf, Staudinger, Eva and Künkel, Lisann (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar (NIHIN Studies), 355–378. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar

Osswald, Rainer and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2014. FrameNet, frame structure, and the syntax–semantics interface. In Gamerschlag, Thomas, Gerland, Doris, Osswald, Rainer and Petersen, Wiebke (eds.), Frames and Concept Types, 125–156. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Osswald, Rainer and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2022. The description of transitive directed motion in Lakhota (Siouan). In Sarda, Laure and Fagard, Benjamin (eds.), Neglected Aspects of Motion Events Description: Deixis, Asymmetries, Constructions, 209–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl J. and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Rambow, Owen. 1994. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Rambow, Owen, Vijay-Shanker, K. and Weir, David. 1995. D-tree grammars. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 151–158. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Rambow, Owen, Vijay-Shanker, K. and Weir, David. 2001. D-tree substitution grammars. Computational Linguistics 27(1): 87–121.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, Hans and Sag, Ivan (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 61–188. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan A. and Wasow, Thomas. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Ullrich, Jan (ed.) 2011. New Lakota Dictionary (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Lakota Language Consortium.Google Scholar

Ullrich, Jan. 2018. Modification, Secondary Predication and Multi-Verb Constructions in Lakota. PhD thesis, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. 2009. Criteria of adequacy in functional linguistics. Folia Linguistica: Acta Societas Linguistica Europaea 42(1): 1–66.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-García, F., , F. 2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space (Studies in Language Companion Series 157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.). 2009. Deconstructing Constructions. (Studies in Language Companion Series 107). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Copestake, A. 2002. Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars (Center for the Study of Language and Information Publication Lecture Notes). Stanford, CA: CSLI publications.Google Scholar

Cortés-Rodríguez, F. 2016a. Parsing simple clauses within ARTEMIS: The computational treatment of the layered structure of the clause in Role and Reference Grammar. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference of AESLA, Alicante, 14–16.Google Scholar

Cortés-Rodríguez, F. 2016b. Towards the computational implementation of Role and Reference Grammar: Rules for the syntactic parsing of RRG phrasal constituents. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (CLAC). 65: 75–108.Google Scholar

Cortés-Rodríguez, F. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2016. Building an RRG computational grammar. Onomazein 34: 86–117.Google Scholar

Díaz Galán, A. and Fumero Pérez, M.. 2016. Developing parsing rules within ARTEMIS: The case of Do auxiliary insertion. In Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mestre-Mestre, E. (eds.), Understanding Meaning and Knowledge Representation: From Theoretical and Cognitive Linguistics to Natural Language Processing, 283–302. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Díaz Galán, A. and Fumero Pérez, M. 2017. ARTEMIS: state of the art and future horizons. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 23( 2): 16–40. https://ojsspdc.ulpgc.es/ojs/index.php/LFE/article/view/917.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. 2008. Where is the PreCore slot? Mapping the layered structure of the clause and German sentence topology. In Van Valin, (ed.), 203–224.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. 2011. The theoretical importance of constructional schemas in RRG. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 168–199. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Diedrichsen, E. 2014. A Role and Reference Grammar parser for German. In Nolan, and Periñán, (eds.), 105–142.Google Scholar

Dorr, B. J. 1992. Machine translation divergences: A lexical semantic perspective. Proceedings of the Second Seminar on Computational Lexical Semantics, 169–183. Toulouse, France.Google Scholar

Dorr, B. J., Hovy, E. H. and Levin., L. S. 2006. Machine translation: Interlingual methods. In Natural Language Processing and Machine Translation Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.58.532.Google Scholar

Felices-Lago, A. and Ureña Gómez-Moreno, P.. 2014. FunGramKB term extractor: A tool for building terminological ontologies from specialised corpora. In Nolan, and Periñán-Pascual, (eds.), 251–270.Google Scholar

Fumero Pérez, M. and Díaz Galán, A.. 2017. The interaction of parsing rules and argument-predicate constructions: Implications for the structure of the Grammaticon in FunGramKB. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 12: 33–44.Google Scholar

Gottschalk, J. 2012. The persuasive tutor: A BDI teaching agent with Role and Reference Grammar language interface – Sustainable design of a conversational agent for language learning. ITB Journal 13(2): 31–50. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/itbj/vol13/iss2/3.Google Scholar

Gottschalk, J. 2014. Three-place predicates in RRG: A computational approach. In Nolan, and Periñán-Pascual, (eds.), 79–104.Google Scholar

Gottschalk, J. 2019. On the application of conceptual graphs in RRG: First steps towards a functional computational processing model. In Kailuweit, R., Künkel, L. and Staudinger, E. (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar, 325–354. Freiburg: NIHIN Studies. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/16830.Google Scholar

Guerra García, F. and Sacramento Lechado, E.. 2014. Exploring the thematic-frame mapping in FunGramKB. In Nolan, and Periñán-Pascual, (eds.), 233–250.Google Scholar

Guest, E. 2008. Parsing for Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, (ed.), 435–453.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kailuweit, R, Künkel, L. and Staudinger, E. (eds.). 2019. Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar. Freiburg: NIHIN Studies. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/16830.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R. and Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2013. Tree wrapping for Role and Reference Grammar. In Morrill, G. and Nederhof, M.-J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Formal Grammar 17th and 18th International Conferences, 175–190. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Kecskes, I. and Zhang., F. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17:(2): 331–355.Google Scholar

Leeson, L. and Nolan, B.. 2008. Digital deployment of the Signs of Ireland Corpus in Elearning. In Language Resources and Evaluation LREC2008 – 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora, Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar

Mairal Usón, R. and Cortés-Rodríguez, F.. 2017. Automatically representing text meaning via an interlingua-based system (ARTEMIS): A further step towards the computational representation of RRG. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research 1: 61–87.Google Scholar

Mairal Usón, R. and Ruiz de Mendoza, F.. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J. (eds.), Deconstructing Constructions (Studies in Language Companion Series 107), 153–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Montiel-Ponsoda, E. and Aguado-de-Cea, G.. 2014. Applying the lexical constructional model to ontology building. In Nolan, and Periñán-Pascual, (eds.), 313–338.Google Scholar

Murtagh, I. 2019a. Motivating the computational phonological parameters of an Irish Sign Language avatar. In Nolan, and Diedrichsen, (eds.), 323–339.Google Scholar

Murtagh, I. 2019b. A Linguistically Motivated Computational Framework for Irish Sign Language. PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin School of Linguistic Speech & Communication Science. www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/89131.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. 2004. First steps towards a computational Role and Reference Grammar. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar, Dublin, July 2004, 196–223. https://rrg.caset.buffalo.edu/rrg/RRG2004%20Book%20of%20Proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. 2011. Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the layered structure of the Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 64–103. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. 2012. The Syntax of Modern Irish: A Functional Account. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. 2013. Constructions as grammatical objects: A case study of the prepositional ditransitive construction in Modern Irish. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics, (Studies in Language Companion Series 145), 143–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. 2014. Extending a lexicalist functional grammar through speech acts, constructions and conversational software agents. In Nolan, and Periñán, (eds.), 143–164.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. 2016. What can theoretical linguistics do for natural language processing research? In Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mestre Mestre, E. (eds.). Meaning and Knowledge Representation, 235–248. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.). 2013. Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.). 2019. Linguistic Perspectives on the Construction of Meaning and Knowledge: The Linguistic, Pragmatic, Ontological and Computational Dimensions. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. and Periñán-Pascual, C. (eds.). 2014. Language Processing and Grammars: The Role of Functionally Oriented Computational Models (Studies in Language Companion Series 150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. and Salem, Y.. 2010. UniArab: An RRG Arabic-to-English Machine Translation Software. In W. Nakamura (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG 2009), 243–270. linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg/ProceedingsofRRG2009_02.pdf.Google Scholar

Nolan, B. and Salem, Y.. 2011. UniArab: RRG Arabic-to-English Machine Translation. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 312–346. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar

Panesar, K. 2017. A Linguistically Centred Text-Based Conversational Software Agent. Unpublished PhD thesis, Leeds Beckett University. www.researchgate.net/publication/319376849_PhD_Thesis_%27A_linguistically_centred_text-based_conversational_software_agent%27.Google Scholar

Panesar, K. 2019. Functional linguistic based motivations for a conversational software agent. In Nolan, and Diedrichsen, (eds.), 340–371.Google Scholar

Panesar, K. 2020. Conversational artificial intelligence: Demystifying statistical vs. linguistic NLP solutions. Journal of Computer-Assisted Linguistic Research 4: 47–79.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. 2013. Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding. In Nolan, and Diedrichsen, (eds.), 205–230.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F.. 2004. Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications, 8–42. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F.. 2005. Microconceptual-knowledge spreading in FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, 239–244. Anaheim: ACTA Press.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F.. 2007. Deep semantics in an NLP knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence, Universidad de Salamanca, 279–288.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F.. 2008. A cognitive approach to qualities for NLP. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 41: 137–144.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez, F.. 2010. The architecture of FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2010, Malta, 2667–2674. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/summaries/284.html.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Arcas-Túnez., F 2014. The implementation of the FunGramKB CLS Constructor in ARTEMIS. In Nolan, and Periñán-Pascual, (eds.), 165–196.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2009. Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43: 265–273.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2010. Enhancing UniArab with FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44: 19–26.Google Scholar

Periñán-Pascual, C. and Mairal Usón, R.. 2011. The COHERENT methodology in FunGramKB. Onomázein 24: 13–33.Google Scholar

Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Haubeck, C. and Ladiges, J.. 2014. Programming BDI agents with pure Java. In German Conference on Multiagent System Technologies, MATES2014, 216–233. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4): 409–441.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rao, A. S. and Georgeff, M. P.. 1995. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems ICMAS-95, 312–319.Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza, F. and 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.Google Scholar

Sánchez-Cárdenas, B. and Faber, P.. 2014. A functional and constructional approach for specialized knowledge resources. In Nolan, and Periñán-Pascual, (eds.), 297–312.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (ed.). 2008. Investigations of the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. (Studies in Language Companion Series 105). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and Diedrichsen, E.. 2006. A Bonsai Grammar for German. www.academia.edu/26126987/A_Bonsai_Grammar_for_German.Google Scholar

Vauquois, B. 1968. A survey of formal grammars and algorithms for recognition and transformation in machine translation. Proceedings of the IFIP Congress-6, 254–260.Google Scholar

Winther-Nielsen, N. 2008. A Role-Lexical Module (RLM) for Biblical Hebrew: A mapping tool for RRG and WordNet. In Van Valin, (ed.), 455–478.Google Scholar