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. 291–308

Chapter 11
Change in category membership from the perspective of construction grammar

A commentary

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Categories: Creation and change
    • 2.1The creation of a new category
    • 2.2Category restructuring
  • 3.Gradualness
  • 4.The constructional network
    • 4.1Links between constructions
    • 4.2Constructionalization, constructional changes and categories
  • 5.Concluding comments
  • References
Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.11tro
References
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–273). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 183–209.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic variation in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language, 31(2), 409–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D.
(2010) Category change in English with and without structural change. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.) (2010) Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers? Journal of the British Academy, 1, 151–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L., Heyvaert, L., & Maekelberghe, C.
(2015) How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
(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
Hudson, R. A.
(1997) The rise of auxiliary do: Verb-non-raising or category strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95, 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P.
(2013) The limits of (construction) grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M.
(2014) On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Cogling Days , Universiteit Gent, 11–12 December 2014. [URL]
Petré, P.
(2014) Constructions and environments: Copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(1996) Review of W. Pagliuca, (Ed.) Perspectives on Grammaticalization . Cognitive Linguistics, 7(3), 301–306.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) (2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verveckken, K.
(2015) Binominal quantifiers in Spanish: Conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2020. Metonymy meets coercion. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Abruñeiras, Paula
2020. Example Markers at the Intersection of Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. English Studies 101:5 ► pp. 616 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020. Introduction. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.