Chapter published in:
Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar
Edited by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
[Constructional Approaches to Language 21] 2018
► pp. 319
References

References

Andersson, P.
(2014) The fast case. Constructionalization of a Swedish concessive. Nordic Journal of Lingustics, 37, 141–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H.
(1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W.
(1998) Grammaticalization and language contact, constructions and positions. In A. Giacalone Ramat, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization (pp. 13–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Audring, J.
(2018). Category change in Construction Morphology. In K. Van Goethem, N. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede Eds. Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J.
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization. The role of frequency. In R. Janda, & B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E.
(2018). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede Eds. Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Crossref
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2002) A model for relevant types of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R & Comer, M.
(this volume). Evaluating grammaticalization and constructional accounts: The development of the inchoative construction with put verbs in Spanish
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of Let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M.
(2009) Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis: Constructions and Frames 1(2), 261-290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Principles of Constructional Change. In: G Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A.
(2011) Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 92–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granvik, A.
(this volume). The development of the conditional caso construction i spanish.
Guardamagna, C.
(this volume). Type frequency, productivity and schematicity in the evolution of the Latin secundum NP construction
Heine, B.
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2010) Contact and grammaticalization. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Handbook of language contact (pp. 86–105). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Narrog, H., & Long, H.
(2016) Constructional change vs. grammaticalization. From compounding to derivation. Studies in Language, 40, 137–175.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(this volume). Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar.
(2013) Constructional changes in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization. Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Th., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hölzl, A.
(this volume). Constructionalization areas: The case of negation in Manchu.
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Karlsson, E.
(this volume). A Radical Construction Grammar approach to construction split in the diachrony of the spatial particles of Ancient Greek: Some theoretical preliminaries.
Kemmer, S., & Barlow M.
(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Kinn, T.
(this volume). Pseudocoordination in Norwegian: Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1982) Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A programmatic Sketch. Volume I. Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48. Köln.Google Scholar
Lesuisse, M & Lemmens, M.
(this volume). Grammaticalisation cut short: A diachronic constructional view on English posture verbs
Newman, J.
(2009) English posture verbs: an experientially grounded approach. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 30–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neels, J & Hartmann, S.
(this volume). Reduction or expansion? A bit of both: A case study on the development of German degree modifiers.
Noël, D.
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14, 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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
Trousdale, G.
(2015) Three areas where Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar don’t meet. Paper presented at the workshop ‘Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar’, Gothenburg 8–9 October 2015.
Tuggy, D.
(2007) Schematicity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 82–166). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Von Mengden, F., & Coussé, E.
(2014) The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. In E. Coussé, & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 august 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.