Article published in:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 283294
References

References

Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, and Arne Zeschel
2010 “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology.” Corpora 5 (1): 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic?.” In Roots, ed. by Sam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
[ p. 292 ]
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Riet Vos
2013Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006 “From Usage to Grammar.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006 “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions.’” Constructions SV 1–7 (2006).Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, and David Sankoff
1974 “Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence.” Language 50 (2): 333–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2014 “Functional Partitioning and Possible Limits on Variability.” Journal of English Linguistics 42 (3): 218–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
2018 “Experience, Aptitude and Individual Differences in Native Language Ultimate Attainment.” Cognition 178: 222–235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Isabeau, and Freek Van de Velde
2019 “Reassessing the Evolution of West Germanic Preterite Inflection.” Diachronica 36 (2): 139–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Vriendt, Sera
1965Sterke Werkwoorden en Sterke Werkwoordsvormen in de 16e eeuw [Strong Verbs and Strong Verb Forms in the 16th Century]. Brussel: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2019The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duden
2009Die Grammatik [The Grammar]. 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor, and Gary Dell
2000 “Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production.” Cognitive Psychology 40 (4): 296–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor, Adam Morgan, and Robert Slevc
2018 “Grammatical Encoding.” In The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. by Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer, and Gareth Gaskell, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor, and Elizabeth Schotter
2013 “Do Verb Bias Effects on Sentence Production Reflect Sensitivity to Comprehension or Production Factors?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66 (8): 1548–1571. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2010a “Recontextualizing Grammar: Underlying Trends in Thirty Years of Cognitive Linguistics.” In Cognitive Linguistics in Action, ed. by Elzbieta Tabakowska, Michal Choinski, and Lukasz Wiraszka, 71–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2010bTen Lectures on Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman
2010 Introduction . In Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman, 1–19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Geeraerts, and Dirk Speelman
2007 “A Case for Cognitive Corpus Linguistics.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael Spivey, 149–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten van den Toorn
1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. 2nd edition. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff/Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick
2013Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: MIT press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 293 ]
Jaeger, Florian Tim
2010 “Redundancy and Reduction: Speakers Manage Syntactic Information Density.” Cognitive Psychology 61 (1): 23–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam
1997 “I Don’t Believe in Word Senses.” Computers And The Humanities 31 (2): 91–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kruijsen, Joep, and Nicoline van der Sijs
2016 “Meertens Kaartenbank” [Meertens Database of Maps]. Available as www​.meertens​.knaw​.nl​/kaartenbank/.
Labov, William
1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz
1978 “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?Language in Society 7 (2): 171–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk
2019 “How, Why and Where Does Argument Structure Vary?” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Dirk Speelman
2017 “Alternating Argument Constructions of Dutch Psychological Verbs.” Folia Linguistica 51 (1): 207–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Freek Van de Velde
2018 “A Multivariate Analysis of the Partitive Genitive in Dutch.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14 (1): 99–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie
2018a “Guidelines for the Dative Alternation.” Available at http://​melanie​-roethlisberger​.ch​/data/.
2018b “Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation.” PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert, and Karlien Franco
2016a “Toward More Accountability: Modeling Ternary Genitive Variation in Late Modern English.” Language Variation and Change 28 (1): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Benedikt Heller, and Melanie Röthlisberger
2016b “Around the World in Three Alternations: Modeling Syntactic Variation in Varieties of English.” English World-Wide 37 (2): 109–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali
2012Variationist Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra Annear, and Anthony Mulac
1991 “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Grammaticalization, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–339. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Katrien Beuls, Isabeau De Smet, and Dirk Pijpops
2017 “The Weakening of Strong Preterites in West-Germanic.” Paper presented at A Germanic Sandwich , 5th edn., University of Münster, 17 – 18 March 2017.
Van de Velde, Freek, Karlien Franco, and Dirk Geeraerts
2019 “Reality check voor de kwantitatieve Nederlandse taalkunde [A reality check for quantitative Dutch linguistics]”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 135 (4): 329–343.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2013 “Darwin en de ideale taalgebruiker” [Darwin and the ideal language user]. In Honderd Jaar Taalwetenschap. Artikelen aangeboden aan Saskia Daalder bij haar afscheid van de Vrije Universiteit [100 years of Linguistics. Articles offered to Saskia Daalder on the occasion of her retirement at the Vrije Universiteit], ed. by Theo Janssen, and Jan Noordegraaf, 151–162. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Münster: /Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
[ p. 294 ]
Wallis, Sean
2012 “That Vexed Problem of Choice.” Paper presented at ICAME33, University of Leuven, 30 May – 3 June 2012. Typescript available at www​.ucl​.ac​.uk​/english​-usage​/statspapers​/vexedchoice​.pdf.
Zehentner, Eva, and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020 “Constructional Networks and the Development of Benefactive Ditransitives in English.” In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 168–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zuidema, Willem, and Arie Verhagen
2010 “What Are the Unique Design Features of Language? Formal Tools for Comparative Claims.” Adaptive Behavior 18 (1): 48–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar