Chapter published in:
Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar
Edited by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
[Constructional Approaches to Language 21] 2018
► pp. 2139
References

References

Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S.
(2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L.
(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
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G.
(2015) On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., Corbett, G. G., Fraser, N. M., Hippisley, A., & Timberlake, A.
(1996) Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics, 34, 53–107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2003) Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Volume II (pp. 145–167). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., 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. L., & Beckner, C.
(2010) Usage-based theory. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 827–855). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2015) Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive in a diachronic perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 216–258). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G., & Fraser, N. M.
(1993) Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 113–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2010) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coha/.
De Smet, H.
(2013) Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V.
(2016) Cognitive Linguistics. In S. E.F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science (pp. 283–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C.
(1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, N. M., & Corbett, G. G.
(1997) Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua, 103(1), 25–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gurney, K.
(1997) An Introduction to Neural Networks. London: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B.
(1997) Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Narrog, H., & Long, H.
(2016) Constructional change vs. grammaticalization: From compounding to derivation. Studies in Language, 40(1), 137–175.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2011) Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4), 435–461.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2015a) Historical Linguistics. In E. Dabrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 346–365). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H.
(2017) Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment, Memory and Automaticity. The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning (pp. 57–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.
(2015) Review of Rolf Kreyer, The nature of rules, regularities and units in language: A network model of the language system and of language use. Mouton De Gruyter, 2014. Journal of Linguistics, 51(3), 692–696.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S. E.
(Eds.) (2017) The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, R. D.
(2001) Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 23(2), 265–340.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.
(1999) Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2005) Construction Grammars: Cognitive, Radical, and Less So. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Noël, D.
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., & Heltoft, L.
(2015) Grammaticalisation as paradigmatisation. In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New Directions in Grammaticalization Research (pp. 261–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P.
(2014) Constructions and environments: Copular, Passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F.
(2016) Constructional contamination. What is it and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(Ed.) (2017) Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: how we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. Boston: APA/Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L.
(2015) The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 109–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T.
(2015) On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 175–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2015) Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, S. Gildea, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 51–79). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J., Van Olmen, D., & Dumon, D.
(2015) Grammaticalization. In E. Dabrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 634–650). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle 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
Van Rompaey, T., Davidse, K., & Petré, P.
(2015) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: the case of the verbo-nominal expressions be on the/one’s way/road . Functions of Language, 22(2), 232–263.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R.
(2010) Grammaticalization and Semantic Maps: Evidence from Artificial Language Evolution. Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 310–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The Evolution of Case Systems for Marking Event Structure. In L. Steels (Ed.), Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution (pp. 169–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wellens, P., van Trijp, R., & Beuls, K.
(2013) Fluid Construction Grammar for Historical and Evolutionary Linguistics. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 127–132.Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30(3), 382–419.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

No author info given
2019. Introduction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 263 ff. Crossref logo
Fanego, Teresa
2021. “Don’t go getting into trouble again!”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics Crossref logo
Flach, Susanne
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 46 ff. Crossref logo
Flach, Susanne
2021. From movement into action to manner of causation: changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics 59:1  pp. 247 ff. Crossref logo
Garachana, Mar & María Sol Sansiñena
2021.  Va a ser que no . Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 Crossref logo
Groom, Nicholas
2019. Construction Grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3  pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo
Gyselinck, Emmeline
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 108 ff. Crossref logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2019. Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure 12:3  pp. 297 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
2020. Intersubjectification in constructional change. Constructions and Frames 12:1  pp. 96 ff. Crossref logo
Hoffmann, Thomas
2021. What would it take for us to abandon construction Grammar?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 Crossref logo
Lorenz, David
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 244 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1  pp. 22 ff. Crossref logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Sommerer, Lotte
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 70 ff. Crossref logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020. A study of the development of the Chinese correlative comparative construction from the perspective of constructionalization. Diachronica 37:1  pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 april 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.