Article published in:
Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 1–50

Diachronic Construction Grammar

Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications

| Ghent University & University of Bergen
| University of Oregon & Collegium de Lyon
The main goal of this chapter is to discuss the value of the Construction Grammar framework to solving perceived problems with diachronic syntax. As such, one part of this chapter provides a condensed review of previous research in diachronic syntax, including a brief discussion of why many linguists have doubted the value of such work. While most of this early work did not emphasize the importance of constructions to our understanding of either synchronic or diachronic syntax, we do identify earlier examples of work for which the notion of construction was crucial, although not richly developed. The bulk of the chapter then proposes ways in which a constructional perspective/theory allows us to address some of these perceived problems with the study of diachronic syntax, hence providing a research context for the individual studies published in this volume.
Published online: 30 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar
References
Barðdal, J
(1999) Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. In I. Haskå, & C. Sandqvist (Eds.), Alla tiders språk. En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999 (pp. 9–23). Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap A 55. Lund: Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
(2001a) The perplexity of Dat-Nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 24, 47–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001b) The role of thematic roles in constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic inchoative. In A. Holmer, J. Svantesson, & Å. Viberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian conference of linguistics 2000 (pp. 127–137). Lund: Department of Linguistics, Lund University.Google Scholar
(2006) Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 39–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The semantic and lexical range of the Ditransitive Construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language, 14(1), 9–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) The development of case in Germanic. In J. Barðdal, & S.L. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 123–159). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The rise of dative substitution in the history of Icelandic: A diachronic construction grammar approach. Lingua, 121(1), 60–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32(2006), 467–478.Google Scholar
(2013) Construction-based historical comparative reconstruction. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 438–457). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2014) Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In C. Bowern, & B. Evans (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical Linguistics (pp. 343–373). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Dewey, T.K., Eythórsson, T., Fedriani, C., & Smitherman, T
(2013) The story of 'woe'. Journal of Indo-European Studies, 41(3–4), 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Eythórsson, T
(2006) Control infinitives and case in Germanic: 'Performance error' or marginally acceptable constructions. In L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, & P. de Swart (Eds.), Case, valency and transitivity (pp. 147–177). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the Comparative Method. In H.C. Boas, & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 257–308). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2012b) "Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies": Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(3), 363–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K.E., & Sveen, A
(2011) West Scandinavian Ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP Construction. Linguistics, 49(1), 53–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Smitherman, T
(2013) The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change, 3(1), 28–67.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smitherman, T., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Jenset, G.B., & McGillivray, B
(2012) Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language, 36(3), 511–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N
(2013) Embodied construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 168–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, B.K., & Plauché, M.C
(2001)  Voilà voilà: Extensions of deictic constructions in French. In A. Cienki, B. Luka, & M. Smith (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 45–61). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bisang, W
(2010) Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account. In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 245–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A
(2012) Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bopp, F
(1816) Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Frankfurt: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J., & Traugott, E.C
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph, & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W
(1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J
(1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L
(Ed.) (2001) Grammaticalization: A critical assessment, Special issue of Language Sciences, 23(2–3).Google Scholar
(2001) What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences, 23, 113–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L., & R.D. Janda
(2001) Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences, 23(2–3), 93–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T.C
(2002) How conceptual metaphors are productive of spatial–graphical expressions. In W.D. Grey, & C.D. Shunn, 20 (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 208–213). Mahwa, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clausner, T.C., & W.A. Croft
(1997) Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., Harbert, W., Hermon, G., & Sridhar, S.N
(1980) The acquisition of subjecthood. Language, 56, 719–743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S
(2009) Grammatical categories and relations: Universality vs. language-specificity and construction-specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 441–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, E
(2009) Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in Early Vedic. In J. Barðdal, & S.L. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 23–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H
(2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–1755. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, H.M
(2009) A usage-based approach to change: Old Russian possessive constructions. In J. Barðdal, & S.L. Chelliah (Eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case (pp. 161–180). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elvira, J
(2011) Constructions of uncontrolled state or event: The increase in productivity of a new argument structure in Old Spanish. Constructions and Frames, 3(2), 184–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, T., & Barðdal, J
(2011) Die konstruktionsgrammatik und die komparative Methode. In T. Krisch & T. Lindner (Eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg (pp. 148–156). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Fedriani, C
(2009) The “Behavior-Before-Coding” principle: Further evidence from Latin. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, XCIV(2), 156–184.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach, & R.T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1984) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
(2013) Berkeley construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 111–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J
(2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fløgstad, G
(2014) Forking paths: Subfunction variation and the Rioplatense preterit. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oslo University.
Gabelentz, G. von der
(1891) Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar
Gildea, S
(1992) Comparative Cariban morphosyntax: On the genesis of ergativity in independent clauses. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon.
(1993) The rigid postverbal subject in Panare: A historical explanation. International Journal of American Linguistics (IJAL), 59, 44–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In T. Givón (Ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective (pp. 155–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) On reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In S. Gildea (Ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization (pp. 65–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T
(1971) Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society, 7, 394–415.Google Scholar
(1976) Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In C. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 149–188). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2008) The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E., & R.S. Jackendoff
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80, 532–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.C
(1985) Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Alignment typology and diachronic change. In W. Lehmann (Ed.), Language typology 1987: Systematic balance in language (pp. 67–90). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Reconstruction in syntax: Reconstruction of patterns. In G. Ferraresi, & M. Goldbach (Eds.), Principles of syntactic reconstruction (pp. 73–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.C., & L. Campbell
(1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S.P
(2003) On the limits of the comparative method. In B.D. Joseph, & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 343–368). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(1999) Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37, 1043–1068. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon, & M. Onishi (Eds.), Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects (pp. 53–83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., & Caruana, S
(2000) Subject diffuseness in Maltese: On some subject properties of experiential verbs. Folia Linguistica, 34(3–4), 245–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B
(1993) Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 255–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In O. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) On degrammaticalization. In B. Blake, & K. Burridge (Eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 163–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemayer, F
(1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T
(2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) The changing languages of Europe. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & M. Reh
(1984) Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M
(2008) Where did this future construction come from? A case study of Swedish komma att V . In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 107–131). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hollmann, W.B., & Siewierska, A
(2007) A construction grammar account of possessive constructions in Lancashire Dialect: Some advantages and challenges. English Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 407–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The status of frequency, schemas, and identity in cognitive sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 25–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P
(1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1–2 (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & E.C. Traugott
(1993 [2003]) Grammaticalization. 1st/2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von
(1825) Über das Entstehen der grammatikalischen Formen und ihren Einfluβ auf die Ideenentwicklung. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 2, 401–430.Google Scholar
Israel, M
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R
(1997) Twistin’ the night away. Language, 73, 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L
(2010) Alternative radial categories for the Old Norse genitive. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift, 28(2), 280–289.Google Scholar
Janda, R.D
(2001) Beyond "pathways" and "unidirectionality". Language Sciences, 22(2–3), 265–340.Google Scholar
Jeffers, R.J
(1976) Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction. In W.M. Christie, Jr. (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics: Proceedings of the second International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Joseph, B
(2011) Grammaticalization: A general critique. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 193–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P
(1997) Construction grammar feature structures (revised). Available at http://​www​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~kay​/bcg​/FSrev​.html.
(2002) Patterns of coining. Available at http://​www1​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~kay​/coining​.pdf.
Kuryłowicz, J
(1976 [1965]) The evolution of grammatical categories. Reprinted in Jerzy Kuryłowicz, 1976, Esquisses linguistiques, Vol. 2 (pp. 38–54). Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1977) Linguistic gestalts. Chicago Linguistics Society, 13, 236–287.Google Scholar
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1977) Syntactic reanalysis. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57–139). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D
(1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2006) How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A
(1912) L'evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza), 12(26), 6.Google Scholar
Melis, C., & Flores, M
(2012) Emergence and grammaticalization of constructions within the se me network of Spanish. In K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections (pp. 249–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L.A
(2013) Sign-based construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 133–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A., & Ruppenhofer, J
(2001) Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Narrog, H., & Heine, B
(Eds.) (2011) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M
(2001) Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. Language Sciences, 23(2–3), 231–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G., I.A. Sag, & T. Wasow
(1994) Idioms. Language, 70, 491–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nygaard, M
(1906) Norrøn syntax [Old Norse syntax]. Reprinted 1996. Oslo: H. Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Östman, J., & Fried, M
(2004) Historical and intellectual Background of construction grammar. In M. Fried, & J. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 1–10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, H
(1920 [1880]) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th Edition. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sag, I
(2012) Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In H.C. Boas, & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 69–202). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Smith, K.A
(2001) The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. In J. Bybee, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 361–382). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L
(Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in fluid construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Ed.) (2012) Computational issues in fluid construction grammar. Berlin: Springer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A
(1977) Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 141–477). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M
(1998) Cognitive linguistics. In W. Bechtel, & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 477–487). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(2003) Constructions in grammaticalization. In B.D. Joseph, & R.D. Janda (Eds.), A handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development – Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008b) “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts. In R. Cooper, & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution (pp. 143–177). London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Heine, B
(Eds.) (1991) Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1–2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G
(2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate in English. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2013) Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language, 37(3), 491–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, C
(1964) Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure. In H.G. Lunt (Ed.), Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Linguists (pp. 1035–1045). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wessén, E
(1965) Svensk språkhistoria III: Grundlinjer till en historisk syntax [Swedish language history III: The basics of historical syntax]. Reprinted 1992 by Akademitryck. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 33 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
Alba-Salas, Josep
2020. Construccionalización y obsolescencia en las colocaciones tipo <em>caerle/venirle/entrarle en N</em><sub>‘agrado’</sub>. Revista de Filología Española 100:1 ► pp. 9 ff. Crossref logo
Barđdal, Jóhanna, Leonid Kulikov, Roland Pooth & Peter Alexander Kerkhof
2020. Oblique anticausatives: A morphosyntactic isogloss in Indo-European. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 56:3 ► pp. 413 ff. Crossref logo
Birchall, Joshua
2018. Historical change in reported speech constructions in the Chapacuran family. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 7 ff. Crossref logo
Chappell, Hilary & Jean‐Christophe Verstraete
2019. Optional and alternating case marking: Typology and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:3 ► pp. e12311 ff. Crossref logo
Colleman, Timothy
2016. A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-away construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo
Colleman, Timothy
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
D’hoedt, Frauke, Hendrik De Smet & Hubert Cuyckens
2019. Constructions Waxing and Waning: A Brief History of the Zero-Secondary Predicate Construction. Journal of English Linguistics 47:1 ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Fanego, Teresa
2021. “Don’t go getting into trouble again!”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics Crossref logo
Fonteyn, Lauren & Charlotte Maekelberghe
2018. Competing motivations in the diachronic nominalization of English gerunds. Diachronica 35:4 ► pp. 487 ff. Crossref logo
Gildea, Spike & Joana Jansen
2018.  In Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony [Typological Studies in Language, 121], ► pp. 129 ff. Crossref logo
Guardamagna, Caterina
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 108 ff. Crossref logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline & Timothy Colleman
2016. Tracking shifts in the literal versus the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Herbst, Thomas & Peter Uhrig
2020. The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 135 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Hölzl, Andreas
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 241 ff. Crossref logo
Johnson, Cynthia A., Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov, Esther Le Mair & Jóhanna Barðdal
2019. Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change. Diachronica 36:4 ► pp. 463 ff. Crossref logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 131 ff. Crossref logo
Nieuwenhuijsen, Dorien
2018. Changing frequencies in a constructional landscape. Diachronica 35:2 ► pp. 210 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 39 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
Rosemeyer, Malte & Mar Garachana
2019. De la consecución a la contraexpectación: la construccionalización de lograr/conseguir + infinitivo . Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 383 ff. Crossref logo
Rosés Labrada, Jorge Emilio
2018. The Piaroa subject marking system and its diachrony. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
Rudnicka, Karolina
2021. The “negative end” of change in grammar: terminology, concepts and causes. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1 Crossref logo
Shirtz, Shahar, Luigi Talamo & Annemarie Verkerk
2021. The Evolutionary Dynamics of Negative Existentials in Indo-European. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Sommerer, Lotte
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 70 ff. Crossref logo
Sommerer, Lotte
2020. Why we avoid the ‘Multiple Inheritance’ issue in Usage-based Cognitive Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 320 ff. Crossref logo
Sundquist, John D.
2020. Productivity, richness, and diversity of light verb constructions in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:3 ► pp. 349 ff. Crossref logo
Vangaever, Jasper
2021. On la voit se développant : la construction progressive présentative du latin tardif à l’ancien français. Langue française N° 209:1 ► pp. 63 ff. Crossref logo
Zehentner, Eva & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 168 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 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.