Article published in:
Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 213256
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 318 ff. Crossref logo
Colleman, Timothy
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24],  pp. 143 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
Hilpert, Martin
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3  pp. 334 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 may 2020. 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.

References

References

Askedal, J.O.
(2005) Grammatikalisierung und Persistenz im deutschen “Rezipienten-Passiv” mit bekommen/kriegen/erhalten . In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 211–228). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Crossref link
(2009) Some general evolutionary and typological characteristics of the Germanic languages. In J.O. Askedal, I. Roberts, T. Matsushita, & H. Hasegawa (Eds.), Germanic languages and linguistic universals (pp. 7–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
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, 53–104. Crossref link
Blom, C.
(2005) Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Utrecht: LOT publications.
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broekhuis, H., & Cornips, L.
(1994) Undative constructions. Linguistics, 32, 173–189. Crossref link
(2012)  The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb . Linguistics, 50, 1205–1249. Crossref link
Colleman, T.
(2006) De Nederlandse datiefalternantie: Een constructioneel en corpusgebaseerd onderzoek. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ghent University.
(2009a) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–220. Crossref link
(2009b) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences, 31, 593–611. Crossref link
(2011) Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 387–410. Crossref link
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–210. Crossref link
Colleman, T., & Noël, D.
(2012) The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 1–28. Crossref link
Croft, W.
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Diedrichsen, E.
(2012) What you give is what you GET? On reanalysis, semantic extension and functional motivation with the German bekommen-passive construction. Linguistics, 50, 1163–1204. Crossref link
Diewald, G.
(1997) Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Crossref link
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over - case studies and theoretical implications. www​.constructions​-online​.de
Fleischer, N.
(2006) The origin of passive get . English Language and Linguistics, 10, 225–252. Crossref link
Glaser, E.
(2005)  Krieg und kriegen: Zur Arealität der BEKOMMEN-Periphrasen. In U.K. Günther, A.H. Buhofer, & E. Piirainen (Eds.), “Krieg und Frieden” – Auseinandersetzung und Versöhnung in Diskursen (pp. 43–64). Tübingen: Francke.
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356. Crossref link
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & Toorn, M.C. van den
(1997) Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff & Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.
Hopper, P.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A.E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Landsbergen, F.
(2006)  Krijgen, kriegen en get: een vergelijkend onderzoek naar betekenisverandering en grammaticalisatie. In M. Huening, A. Verhagen, U. Vogl, & T. van der Wouden (Eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels (pp. 259–272). Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
(2009) Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary linguistics. Utrecht: LOT publications.
Leirbukt, O.
(1997) Untersuchungen zum bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Crossref link
Lenz, A.N.
(2012) On the genesis of the German recipient passive – Two competing hypotheses in the light of current dialect data. In G. de Vogelaer, & G. Seiler (Eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change (pp. 121–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref link
Leeuwen, M. van
(2006) Een baan aangeboden krijgen? Dat krijg ik nooit gedaan! Een synchroon en diachroon onderzoek naar de gebruiksmogelijkheden van krijgen + participium in het kader van de constructiegrammatica. Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Leiden.
Royen, P.G.
(1952) Een aktief-passieve konstruktie. De nieuwe taalgids, 45, 258–261.
Schermer-Vermeer, I.
(1991) Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Schutter, G. de
(1989) Casussen, syntactische functietoekenning en gemarkeerdheid. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 63.Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Siewierska, A.
(1984) The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2006) Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 61–77. Crossref link
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G.
. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crossref link