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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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, 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blom, C
(2005) Complex predicates in Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Utrecht: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Booij, G
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Cornips, L
(1994) Undative constructions. Linguistics, 32, 173–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012)  The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb . Linguistics, 50, 1205–1249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ghent University.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences, 31, 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 387–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & Noël, D
(2012) The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G
(1997) Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hopper, P
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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
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.Google Scholar
(2009) Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary linguistics. Utrecht: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Leirbukt, O
(1997) Untersuchungen zum bekommen-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Royen, P.G
(1952) Een aktief-passieve konstruktie. De nieuwe taalgids, 45, 258–261.Google Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, I
(1991) Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schutter, G. de
(1989) Casussen, syntactische functietoekenning en gemarkeerdheid. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 63.Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A
(1984) The passive: A comparative linguistic analysis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A
(2006) Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 61–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logo
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 318 ff. DOI logo
Colleman, Timothy
2018. Distributional assimilation in constructional semantics. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24],  pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Fanego, Teresa
2017. The trolley rumbled through the tunnel: On the history of the English Intransitive Motion Construction. Folia Linguistica 51:s38-s1  pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline
2020. (Re)shaping the constructional network. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 108 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin
2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3  pp. 334 ff. DOI logo
Nielsen, Peter Juul
2022. The affactive få ‘get’ construction in Danish. Constructions and Frames 14:1  pp. 78 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 january 2023. 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.