Article published in:
On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 1–17

On multiple source constructions in language change

| University of Leuven
| Research Foundation Flanders
Published online: 25 November 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.01int
References

References

Allan, Kathryn
2010 A dull paper: An example of proportional analogy in semantic change? Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics(ICEHL) at the University of Pécs, 23–27 August 2010.
Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg
2011 Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in “a”-adjective production. Language 87(1). 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate
1992 Creating grammar: Examples from Pennsylvania German, Ontario. In: Kate Burridge & Werner Enninger (eds.), Diachronic studies on the languages of the Anabaptists (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung, 17), 199–241. Bochum: N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In: Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Diachronic linguistics. In: Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The handbook of cognitive linguistics, 945–987. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
1983 Historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Gerald L.
1987 Syntactic blends in English parole. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W.
2010 Indo-European language and culture: An introduction, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1997 Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2003 On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27(3). 529–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus.P.
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: opposite or orthogonal? In: Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israël, Michael
1996 The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2004 Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization“theory”. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline –the nature of grammaticalization, 44–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990 How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26. 79–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Menard, Philippe
1978 Manuel du français du moyen âge, vol. 1, Syntaxe de l’ancien français.Bordeaux: SOBODI.Google Scholar
Menge, Hermann
2000 Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta
2011 Variation and change in English resultatives. Language Variation and Change 22. 397–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED: Murray, James A.H., Henry Brodly, W.A. Craigie & C.T. Onions 1993 The Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available online at http://​www​.oed​.comGoogle Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Frans Debrabandere, Arend Quak, Tanneke Schoonheim & Nicoline van der Sijs
2003–2009 Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard
1939 A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don
2006 From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth.C.
2007 The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization’. Cognitive Linguistics 18. 523–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Bree, Cor
1996 Historische taalkunde, 2nd edn. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, Frans
1982 The development of the Germanic reduplicating class: Reanalysis and competition in morphological change. In Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds.), Language change, 39–88. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Horst, Johannes M. & Freek Van de Velde
2003 Zo vreemd een groep. Taal & Tongval Thematic issue 15/16. 237–250.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Johannes M. van der Horst
2013 Homoplasy in diachronic grammar. Language Sciences 36. 66–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manuscript. The diachrony of so odd a noun phrase.
Wischer, Ilse
2010 Sekretion und Exaptation als Mechanismen in der Wortbildung und Grammatik. In Rüdiger Harnisch (ed.), Prozesse sprachlicher Verstärkung: Typen formaler Resegmentierung und semantischer Remotivierung, 29–40. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar