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
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
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Masini, Francesca & Simone Mattiola
2022. Syntactic discontinuous reduplication with antonymic pairs: a case study from Italian. Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 315 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 september 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.