Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.01int
References (32)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26. 79–102. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 [URL]Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth.C. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization’. Cognitive Linguistics 18. 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (6)

Cited by six other publications

Hilpert, Martin
2024. Corpus linguistics meets historical linguistics and construction grammar: how far have we come, and where do we go from here?. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
2022. On Multiple Paths and Change in the Language Network. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Masini, Francesca & Simone Mattiola
2022. Syntactic discontinuous reduplication with antonymic pairs: a case study from Italian. Linguistics 60:1 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Feltgen, Quentin
2019. Diachronic Emergence of Zipf-like Patterns in Construction-Specific Frequency Distributions: A Quantitative Study of the Way Too Construction. Lexis :16 DOI logo
Margerie, Hélène
2019. Am I Way Wrong on this One? On the Multiple Semantic Sources and Paths of Development of the Amplifier Way. Lexis :16 DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2019. List of References. Lexis :16 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. 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.