Chapter published in:
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 3770
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2007) Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic typology (pp.1–66). Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Babel, A., & Pfänder, S.
(2014) Doing copying: Why typology doesn’t matter to language speakers. In Besters-Dilger, J., et al. (Eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change. Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity (pp.239–257). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity. Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2004) The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80, 290–311.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, Tamar H.
(2009) Bilingual minds. Psychological science in the public interest, 10, 89–129.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, R.
(2006) Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins. München: Beck.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blom, J.-P., & Gumperz, J. J.
(1972) Social meaning in linguistic structures: code switching in Northern Norway. In Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication (pp.407–434). New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
(1965 [1933]). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(Ed.) (2010) Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.233–252). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) Learning what not to say: the role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M. G.
(2003)  Dynamics of language contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M.
(2004) History of research on language contact. In Ammon, U., et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 1, pp.799–805). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow etc.: Longman.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman, J.-O., & Fried, M. (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.273–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.211–232). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L.
(2015) Frequency and entrenchment. In Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.53–75). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S.
(2014) On the borrowability of subject pronoun constructions in Turkish–Dutch contact. Constructions and Frames, 6, 143–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A.
(2009) Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 12, 41–63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P.
(2000) Linguistic variation as social practice. The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Malden etc.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.365–378). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A.
(1959) Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137), Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2010) Beyond the sentence. Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and frames, 2, 185–207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A.
(1967) Bilingualism with and without diglossia, diglossia with and without bilingualism. The journal of social issues, 23, 29–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fredsted, E.
(2009) Sprachen und Kulturen in Kontakt – deutsche und dänische Minderheiten in Sønderjylland/Schleswig. In Stolz, C. (Ed.), Neben Deutsch. Die autochthonen Minderheiten- und Regionalsprachen Deutschlands (pp.1–23). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P.
(2009) Code-switching. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G.
(2015) Variationist linguistic. In Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.366–389), Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y.
(2010) Introduction. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp.1–19), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive linguistics, 13, 327–356.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive linguistics, 22, 131–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B.
(2011) Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals. An introduction. New York/Hove: Psychology Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and language, 36, 3–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Studying bilinguals. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F., & Li, P.
(2013) The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2007) Pre-established categories don’t exist. Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic typology, 11, 119–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, B., & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.375–402). Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1950a) Problems of bilingualism. Lingua, 2, 271–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1950b) The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1953) The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1956) Bilingualism in the Americas. A bibliography and research guide: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2003) On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in language, 27, 529–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Meunier, F.
(2015) Modelling ‘constructional transfer’: a comparative corpus study of morphological and syntactic intensifiers in L1 French, Dutch and L2 Dutch. Paper presented at Morphology Days 18 December 2015, Leuven.Google Scholar
Hickey, R.
(Ed.) 2010The handbook of language contact. Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H.
(2017) Entrenchment in construction grammar. In Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.57–74). Washington: De Gruyter Mouton/American Psychological Association.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2014) Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and frames, 6, 137–142.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K., & Gabriel, C. (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp.241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In Åfarli, T. A., & Mæhlum, B. (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp.137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Convergence vs. divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In Braunmüller, K., Höder, S., & Kühl, K. (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms (pp.39–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2014c) Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and frames, 6, 202–231.Google Scholar
(2016a) Niederdeutsche Form, unspezifische Struktur. Diasystematische Konstruktionen in der deutsch-dänischen Kontaktzone. In Spiekermann, H., et al. (Eds.), Niederdeutsch: Grenzen, Strukturen, Variation (pp.293–309). Wien/Köln/Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
(2016b) Though this be contact, yet there is system in’t: Was man noch heute von Uriel Weinreich über Sprachkontakt lernen kann. In Walker, A. (Ed.), Classics revisited. Wegbereiter der Linguistik neu gelesen (pp.157–178). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
(2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York etc.: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L.
(2002) Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Jones, M. C., & Esch, E. (Eds.), Language change. The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (pp.285–313). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) On copying grammatical meaning. Language typology and universals , 58, 75–83.Google Scholar
(2008) Remodeling grammar. Copying, conventionalization, grammaticalization. In Siemund, P., & Kintana, N. (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages (pp.61–79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G.
(2008) Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.45–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K., & Perrotti, L.
(2015) Bilingualism, mind, and brain. Annual review of linguistics, 1, 377–394.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kühl, J., & Bohn, R.
(Eds.) (2005) Ein europäisches Modell? Nationale Minderheiten im deutsch-dänischen Grenzland 1945–2005 Bielefeld/Gütersloh: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte.Google Scholar
Kühl, K. H.
(2008) Bilingualer Sprachgebrauch bei Jugendlichen im deutsch-dänischen Grenzland. Hamburg: Kovač.Google Scholar
Kühl, K.
(2015) Danske aflæggere i Nordeuropa: Færødansk, sydslesvigdansk og bokmål. Danske talesprog, 14, 29–54.Google Scholar
Kühl, K., & Braunmüller, K.
(2014) Linguistic stability and divergence: An extended perspective on language contact. In Braunmüller, K., Höder, S., & Kühl, K. (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact. Factors and mechanisms (pp.13–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kühl, K. H., & Petersen, H. P.
(2009) Converging verbal phrases in related languages. A case study from Faro-Danish and Danish-German language contact situations. In Braunmüller, K., & House, J. (Eds.), Convergence and divergence in language contact situations (pp.101–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2008Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A.
(1985) Acts of identity. Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lepschy, G.
(Ed.) (1998) History of linguistics. Vol. 3: Renaissance and early modern linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
(1991) How to set parameters. Arguments from language change. Cambridge etc.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lüdi, G.
(1996) Mehrsprachigkeit. In Goebl, H., et al. (Eds.), Contact linguistics. An international handbook of contemporary research (vol. 1, pp.233–245). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B.
(2012) Re-thinking FNI. On null instantiation and control in Construction Grammar. Constructions and frames, 4, 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2009) Language contact. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Contact, convergence, and typology. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp.66–85). Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M.
(2002) Communities of practice. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.526–548). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L.
(2002) Social networks. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.549–572). Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, A.
(Ed.) (1998) History of linguistics. Vol. 4: Nineteenth-century linguistics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Müller, M.
(1994 [1861–1864]) Lectures on the science of language. London: Routledge/Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Muysken, P.
(2000) Bilingual speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C.
(2002) Contact linguistics. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oksaar, E.
(1980) Mehrsprachigkeit, Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt. In Nelde, P. H. (Ed.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (pp.43–52). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Palacios, A., & Pfänder, S.
(2014) Similarity effects in language contact. Taking the speakers’ perceptions of congruence seriously. In Besters-Dilger, J., et al. (Eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change. Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity (pp.219–238). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, P. L.
(2002) The speech community. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change (pp.573–597), Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pedersen, K. M.
(2003) Border-region Danish. International journal of the sociology of language, 159, 127–138.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pietsch, L.
(2010) What has changed in Hiberno-English: constructions and their role in contact-induced change. Language typology and universals, 63, 118–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S.
(1980) Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español. Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raith, J.
(2004) Sprachgemeinschaft – Kommunikationsgemeinschaft. In Ammon, U., et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 1, pp.146–158). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roeper, T.
(1999) Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: language and cognition, 2, 169–186.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M.
(2007) Calquing and metatypy. Journal of language contact, Thema 1, 116–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, A.
(1983 [1850]) Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht. Linguistische Untersuchungen. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, H.
(1884) Dem Herrn Franz von Miklosich zum 20. November 1883. Slawo-Deutsches und Slawo-Italienisches. Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky.Google Scholar
Sønderjyllands historie
(2008–2009) Aabenraa: Historisk Samfund før Sønderjylland.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T.
(1988) Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.
(2010) Contact explanations in linguistics. In Hickey, R. (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp.31–47), Malden etc.: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G.
(2014) Contact-induced language change and typological congruence. In Besters-Dilger, J., et al. (Eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change. Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity (pp.201–218), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2006a) Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, D., & Siegler, R. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp.255–298). 6th edn. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
(2006b) Construction Grammar for kids. Constructions, special volume 1, article 11.Google Scholar
Wasserscheidt, P.
(2014) Constructions do not cross languages: On cross-linguistic generalizations of constructions. Constructions and frames, 6, 305–337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, M.
(1945) Der yivo un di problemen fun undzer tsayt. Yivo bleter, 25, 3–18.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1954) Is a structural dialectology possible? Word, 10, 388–400.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1964 [1953]) Languages in contact. Findings and problems. 3rd edn. London/The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Werlen, I.
(2004) Domäne. In Ammon, U., et al. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society (vol. 1, pp.335–341). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Winge, V.
(2004) Geschichte der deutsch-skandinavischen Sprachgrenze. In Besch, W., et al. (Eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (vol. 4, pp.3380–3390). 2nd edn. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D.
(2015) Converging grammars. Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 19 other publications

Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24],  pp. 5 ff. Crossref logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Dux, Ryan
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24],  pp. 211 ff. Crossref logo
Dux, Ryan
2020. Code-switching and loan translation in German-American. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34  pp. 52 ff. Crossref logo
Hagel, Anna
2020. Strange sounds, familiar words. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34  pp. 122 ff. Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen
2019. Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: A diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure 12:3  pp. 334 ff. Crossref logo
Höder, Steffen, Julia Prentice & Sofia Tingsell
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 310 ff. Crossref logo
Mailhammer, Robert & Ronia Zeidan
2019. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual productions of the English past tense in Arabic heritage speakers of Australian English. Linguistics Vanguard 5:1 Crossref logo
Onysko, Alexander
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 82 ff. Crossref logo
Perak, Benedikt & Tajana Ban Kirigin
2022. Construction Grammar Conceptual Network: Coordination-based graph method for semantic association analysis. Natural Language Engineering  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Percillier, Michael
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 214 ff. Crossref logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2022. Lectal contamination. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:3  pp. 259 ff. Crossref logo
Rottet, Kevin J.
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 234 ff. Crossref logo
Urban, Aileen
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 18 ff. Crossref logo
Van Goethem, Kristel & Isa Hendrikx
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 376 ff. Crossref logo
van Rooy, Bertus
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 110 ff. Crossref logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30],  pp. 140 ff. Crossref logo
Zaefferer, Dietmar
2021. Beware of the emperor’s conceptual clothes: general linguistics must not be based on shaky dichotomies. Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2  pp. 113 ff. Crossref logo
Östman, Jan-Ola
2018.  In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24],  pp. 181 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2022. 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.