Chapter published in:
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. 93118
References

References

Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(2000) Usage models of language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brems, L.
(2003) Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 83–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 145–167). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Th. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 47–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Dahl, Ö.
(1989) The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language, 13(1), 51–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. 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., & Torres Cacoullos, R.
(2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticalization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan et al. (Eds.), Formulaic language (Vol 1., pp. 187–217). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E.
(2010) Een digitaal compilatiecorpus historisch Nederlands. Lexikos, 20, 123–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) On ambiguous past participles in Dutch. Linguistics, 49(3), 611–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Lexical expansion in the have and be perfect in Dutch. A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica, 31(2), 159–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J.
(2018) Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, N., & Verveckken, K.
(2012) Conceptually-driven analogy in the grammaticalization of Spanish binominal quantifiers. Linguistics, 52(3), 637–684.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131.Google Scholar
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–253.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(1997) Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J.
(1997) Psychological representation of concepts. In M. A. Conway (Ed.), Cognitive models of memory (pp. 81–107). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Vol. I: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Johnson, K.
(1997) Speech perception without speaker normalization. In K. Johnson, & J. W. Mullennix (Eds.), Talker variability in speech processing (pp. 145–165). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J.
(1964) The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M.
(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological review, 85(3), 207–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A.
(1912) L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (rivista di scienza), 12(26, 6), 384–400.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. P., & Jaxontov, S.
(1988) The typology of resultative constructions. In V. P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (pp. 3–62). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T.
(2007) Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214–235). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.
(2001) Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J. Bybee, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101–139). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, S.
(2002) Semantic changes of English prepositions against a grammaticalization perspective. Language Research, 38(2), 563–583.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 573–605.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Th. F.
(1989) Perfect auxiliary variation as a function of transitivity and Aktionsart. In J. Emonds et al. (Eds.), Proceedings from the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL) (pp. 254–266). Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
(1990) The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In H. Andersen, & K. Koerner (Eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL) (pp. 461–488). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993a)  To be or not to be in Dutch: A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. In R. S. Kirsner (Ed.), Beyond the Low Countries (pp. 85–96). Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(1993b) Split intransitivity in German and Dutch: Semantic and pragmatic parameters. In R. Lippi-Green (Ed.), Recent developments in Germanic Linguistics (pp. 97–113). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1995) Towards a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary selection: Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of German. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures, 7(2), 129–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A.
(2000) Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1995) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph, & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008a) The grammaticalization of the NP of NP construction. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 21–43). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2008b) 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/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008) Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Minkova (Eds.), Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (pp. 301–326). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D.
(2007) Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 82–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verveckken, K.
(2012) Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 421–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Andersson, Peter & Kristian Blensenius
2018. Matches and mismatches in Swedish [gå och V] ‘go/walk and V’. Constructions and Frames 10:2  pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Enghels, Renata & Marie Comer
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 107 ff. Crossref logo
Enghels, Renata & Marie Comer
2020.  In Changes in Meaning and Function [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 25],  pp. 22 ff. Crossref logo
Guardamagna, Caterina
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Lesuisse, Mégane & Maarten Lemmens
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 43 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 june 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.