Article published in:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 115146
References

References

Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, & Tom Schoenemann
2009 “Language is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper.” Language learning 59 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander
2005Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, Richard A., and William Croft
2012 “S-curves and the Mechanisms of Propagation in Language Change.” Language 88 (2): 269–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
1996Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Budts, Sara, and Peter Petré
2016 “Reading the Intentions of be going to. On the Subjectification of Future Markers.” Folia Linguistica Historica 37: 1–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2016 “How Gradual Change Progresses: The Interaction between Convention and Innovation.” Language Variation and Change 28: 83–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, and Liesbet Heyvaert
2011 “The Meaning of the English Present Participle.” English Language and Linguistics 15 (3): 473–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, and Frank Brisard
2014 “A Cognitive Grammar Account of the Semantics of the English Present Progressive.” Journal of Linguistics 50 (1): 49–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit
2002 “Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: A Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21: 151–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Disney, Steve
2009 “The Grammaticalisation of be going to .” Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 63–82.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan
2004 “The Meanings and Uses of the Progressive Construction in an Early Eighteenth-Century English Network.” In Studies in the History of the English Language II, ed. by Anne Curzan, and Kimberly Emmons, 131–174. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 144 ]
Fludernik, Monika
1992 “The Historical Present Tense in English Literature: An Oral pattern and its Literary Adaptation.” Language and Literature 17: 77–107.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
2012 “The Historical Syntax Problem: Reanalysis and Directionality.” In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, ed. by Dianne Jonas et al., 52–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999 “Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?Linguistics 37: 1043–1068. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2008Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard, and Anette Rosenbach
2008 “Priming and Unidirectional Language Change.” Theoretical Linguistics 34 (2): 85–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1917Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi
1994On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van, and Bettelou Los
2006 “Discourse Adverbs and Clausal Syntax in Old and Middle English.” In The Handbook of the History of English, ed. by Ans van Kemenade, and Bettelou Los, 224–48. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Killie, Kristin
2008 “From Locative to Durative to Focalized? The English Progressive and ‘PROG Imperfective Drift’.” In English historical linguistics 2006, vol. 1: Historical syntax and morphology. Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006, ed. by Gotti Maurizio, Marina Dossena, and Richard Dury, 69–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
1994Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja
2010The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G.
2000Emerging English modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 32). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2004 “Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalisation Theory: Statistics, Frequencies, and Beyond.” In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, ed. by Hans Lindquist, and Christian Mair, 121–150. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1912 “L’évolution des formes grammaticales [The evolution of grammatical forms].” Scientia 12: 130–148.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2003 “Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction.” In Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar (CSLI publications 115), ed. by Elaine Francis, and Laura A. Michaelis, 259–310. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja
2010 “The Development of Future Time Expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of Forms or Change in Discourse?English Language and Linguistics 14 (2): 163–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, and Heikki Mannila
2011 “The Diffusion of Language Change in Real-Time: Progressive and Conservative Individuals and the Time Depth of Change.” Language Variation and Change 23: 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter
2013EEBOCorp, version 1.0. Leuven: University of Leuven Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
[ p. 145 ]
2014Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English (Oxford Studies in the History of English 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “Grammaticalization by Changing Co-Text Frequencies, or why [be Ving] Became the ‘Progressive’.” English Language and Linguistics. 20 (1): 31–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming for 2017. “The extravagant progressive. An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving].” English Language and linguistics 21.
Petré, Peter, and Freek Van de Velde
2014 “Tracing Real-Life Agents’ Individual Progress in Ongoing Grammaticalization.” In How Grammaticalization Processes Create Grammar (workshop held at EVOLANG10, Vienna, Austria, 14–17 April 2014) Proceedings, ed. by Luc Steels, and Remi van Trijp. (http://​emergent​-languages​.org​/wp​-content​/papercite​-data​/pdf​/proceedings​.pdf)
Pickering, Martin J., and Victor S. Ferreira
2008 “Structural Priming: A Critical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 134 (3): 427–459. (accessed online at: http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov​/pmc​/articles​/PMC2657366/) doi: Crossref.
Pons-Sanz, Sara
2014The Language of Early English Literature: from Cædmon to Milton. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, and Arja Nurmi
2011 “Grammaticalization and Language Change in the Individual.” In Handbook of Grammaticalisation, ed. by Heiko Narrog, and Bernard Heine, 251–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G.
2006 “Age: Apparent Time and Real Time.” Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Second Edition, Article Number: LALI: 01479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2008 “ ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was…’: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogic Contexts.” In Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. by Robin Cooper, and Ruth Kempson, 143–177. London: Kings College.Google Scholar
2010 “Dialogic Contexts as Motivations for Syntactic Change.” In Studies in the History of the English language V. Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon: Contemporary Approaches, ed. by Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm, and William A. Kretzschmar, Jr., 11–27. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 “On the Persistence of Ambiguous Linguistic Context over Time: Implications for Corpus Research on Micro-Changes”. In Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description, ed. by Joybrato Mukherjee, and Magnus Hüber, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Toward a Coherent Account of Grammatical Constructionalization.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 51–80. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki
2016The Development of the Absolute Construction in English: Between Bird’s Eye View and Magnifying Glass. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit
2009 “Word order in Old and Middle English: The Role of Information Structure and First Language Acquisition.” Diachronica 26 (1): 65–102. Crossref[ p. 146 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Anthonissen, Lynn & Peter Petré
2019. Grammaticalization and the linguistic individual: new avenues in lifespan research. Linguistics Vanguard 5:s2 Crossref logo
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 318 ff. Crossref logo
Detges, Ulrich
2020. Future markers in Western Romance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21:2  pp. 289 ff. Crossref logo
Neels, Jakob
2020. Lifespan change in grammaticalisation as frequency-sensitive automation: William Faulkner and the let alone construction . Cognitive Linguistics 31:2  pp. 339 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199  pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The author and the text in radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar, or why historical linguists have started analysing text again. Functions of Language 26:1  pp. 56 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1  pp. 22 ff. Crossref logo
PETRÉ, PETER
2017. Connecting the past and the present – a response to Pentrel. English Language and Linguistics 21:2  pp. 283 ff. Crossref logo
PETRÉ, PETER
2017. The extravagant progressive: an experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]. English Language and Linguistics 21:2  pp. 227 ff. Crossref logo
Taverniers, Miriam
2018. Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 25:1  pp. 164 ff. Crossref logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2020. Delineating extravagance. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34  pp. 345 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2021. 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.