Chapter published in:
Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 141166
References
Baayen, H.
(1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L.
(2011) Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic study of heap(s) and lot(s) . Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 202–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Pagliuca, W.
(1985) Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-formation (pp. 59–83). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2012) Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word corpus of historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Disney, S.
(2009) The Grammaticalisation of be going to . Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 63–82.Google Scholar
Fanego, T.
(2018) A construction of independent means: the history of the Way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics. Published online 23 April 2018. URL: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3). 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A.
(2011) Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 92–104). New York: Oxford University Press.Google 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 Fringes and its Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2000) Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
(2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2005) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J.
(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patten, A. L.
(2012) The English IT-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(1999) Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of Degree Modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jager, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, Selection, Development. Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008) A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 1, 156–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G.
(1935) The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2022.  In Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], Crossref logo
De Kinderen, Sybren, Monika Kaczmarek-Hes & Kristina Rosenthal
2021.  In 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C),  pp. 531 ff. Crossref logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2021. Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics 32:3  pp. 389 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 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.