Blakemore D (2000). ‘Indicators and procedures: neverthe- less and but.’ Journal of Linguistics 36, 463–486. Blakemore D (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blutner R (2000). ‘Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation.’ Journal of Semantics 17, 189–216. Blutner R & Zeevat H (eds.) (2003). Optimality theory and pragmatics. London: Palgrave. Horn L R (1984). ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature.’ In Schiffrin D (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 11–42. Lee H -K (2002). ‘Towards a new typology of connnectives with special reference to conjunction in English and Korean.’ Journal of Pragmatics 34, 851–866. Levinson S C (1987). ‘Minimization and conversational inference.’ In Verschueren J & Bertuccelli-Papi M (eds.) The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 61–129. Levinson S C (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Wilson D & Sperber D (1993). ‘Linguistic form and relevance.’ Lingua 90, 1–25. Zeevat H (2000). ‘The asymmetry of optimality theoretic syntax and semantics.’ Journal of Semantics 17, 243–262. Construction Grammar L A Michaelis, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Theories of sentence meaning describe the relation- ship between the meaning of a sentence and the mean- ings of the words of that sentence. In compositional theories of sentence meaning, the semantic and syntac- tic requirements of the word (its argument structure) can be used to predict the semantic and syntactic type of a phrase in which that word is the syntactic head. According to this view, known as the principle of lexi- cal projection, words constrain potential sisterhood relations by specifying the types of complements, adjuncts, and determiners that they either require or welcome (Zwicky, 1995; Jackendoff, 1997: Chap. 3; Sag et al., 2003: Chap. 4). In projection-based models of sentence meaning, concepts – like entities, events, and properties – are expressed exclusively by words (Jackendoff, 1997: 48). Rules of syntactic combination assemble words and their dependent elements into phrases, and the phrases denote complex concepts like predicates and propositions. The rules of combi- nation do not add conceptual content to that contrib- uted by the words and therefore do not alter the combinatory potential of words. Thus, on the projection-based view, sentences have meaning but sentence patterns do not. The projection-based view of sentence meaning articulates closely with models of syntax based on principles and parameters. In such models: [a] language [is not] a system of rules, but a set of specifications for parameters in an invariant system of principles of [universal grammar], and traditional grammatical constructions are perhaps best regarded as taxonomic epiphenomena – collections of structures with properties resulting from the interaction of fixed principles with parameters set one way or another (Chomsky, 1989: 43). On this view, the syntactic patterns of a language are not licensed by the grammar of that language; they are simply artifacts of the interaction between universal and language-particular constraints. Con- struction Grammar (CxG) was devised in part to counteract the reductionist views of syntax and se- mantics described above, but at the same time it represented a return to a traditional, ‘taxonomic’ mode of grammatical analysis. Proponents of CxG have sought to show that there are constraints on form and interpretation that cannot be explained except as the products of grammatical constructions, form-meaning pairings of varying degrees of produc- tivity and internal complexity. In CxG, grammar is viewed as a structured inventory of such pairings. Extensive discussion of the implications of this view for syntactic theory can be found in Fillmore et al., 1988; Kay and Fillmore, 1999; Kay, 2002; Zwicky and Pullum, 1991; Zwicky, 1994, 1995; Goldberg, 1995, 2002; Michaelis and Lambrecht, 1996; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer, 2001; Goldberg and Jackendoff, 2004; Fillmore et al. (in press). Grammatical constructions have been a fundamen- tal tool of linguistic description since ancient times (Harris and Taylor, 1997), and for most of that histo- ry they have been treated no differently from words – forms with specific meanings and functions. It was only with the advent of generative grammar that con- structions fell into disrepute. It is easy to understand Construction Grammar 73