Cover not available
Part of
Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 3–12

Chapter 1
Category change from a constructional perspective

Introduction

Article outline
  • 1.Linguistic categories: Discrete or gradient?
  • 2.Category change
  • 3.This volume
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.01van
References (53)
References
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E., & Popova, G. (Eds.), (2004). Fuzzy grammar: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amiot, D., & Van Goethem, K. (2012). A constructional account of French -clé ‘key’ and Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord ‘keyword’. Morphology, 22(3), 347–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. M. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). Conversion and the notion of lexical category. In S. Valera, & L. Bauer (Eds.), Approaches to conversion and/or zero-derivation (pp. 19–30). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, B. J. (2001). Case. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2012). The course of actualization. Language, 88(3), 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change, 28, 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (2001). Gradience and linguistic change. In L. J. Brinton (Ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999 ( Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215) (pp. 119–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization ( Typological Studies in Language 90) (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and brain sciences, 32, 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2009). Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2), 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes (pp. 21–42). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. Language, 60(4), 703–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, S., & Zoll, Ch. (2005). Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerleroux, F. (1996). La coupure invisible: Études de syntaxe et de morphologie. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2002) [1991]. Concept, Image, Symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P. (2014). Between adjective and noun: category/function, mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. In R. Simone, & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes. Nature, typology and representations (pp. 203–225). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Chr. (1995) [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2006). Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: Degrammaticalisering en (re)grammaticalisering van tig . Tabu, 35(1/2), 33–60.Google Scholar
(2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2014). Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 256–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthc.). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer.
Panagiotidis, Ph. (2014). Categorial features: A generative theory of word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, H. (1891). Principles of the history of language (translated from the second edition of the original by Herbert A. Strong). London: Longmans, Green, and co.Google Scholar
Ramat, P. (1999). Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations. Linguistics, 37(1), 157–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Simone, R., & Masini, F. (Eds.). (2014). Word classes. Nature, typology and representations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M. (2013). Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valera, S. (2004). Conversion vs. unmarked word-class change. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 1(1), 20–42.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K. (2017). Lexical categories and processes of category change: Perspectives for a constructionist approach. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation, 1(2), 31–61.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & De Smet, H. (2014). How nouns turn into adjectives: The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 251–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., & Hiligsmann, Ph. (2014). When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ‘giant; great’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 26(1), 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, P., & Comrie, B. (Eds.). (2000). Approaches to the typology of word classes ( Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 23). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Odiegwu, Nancy Chiagolum & Jesús Romero-Trillo
2024. Gradience in iconicity. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.