Chapter published in:
Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 317352
References
Agresti, A.
(2010) Analysis of ordinal categorical data (2nd edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baron, A. & Rayson, P.
(2008) VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, UK 22 May 2008.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S.
(2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. & Elman, J. L.
(1993) Connectionism and the study of change. In M. H. Johnson, Y. Munakata & R. O. Gilmore (Eds.), Brain development and Cognition: A reader (pp. 623–642). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, Y., Larseen-Freeman, D. & Schoenemann, T.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Budts, S. & Petré, P.
(2016) Reading the intentions of be going to. On the subjectification of future markers. Folia Linguistica Historica, 37, 11–32.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & McClelland, J. L.
(2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22, 381–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2015) Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danchev, A. & M. Kytö
(1994) The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in early modern English (pp. 59–77). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Mulder, W., Bethard, S. & Moens, M.
(2015) A survey on the application of recurrent neural networks to statistical language modelling. Computer Speech and Language, 30(1), 611–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., Diller, H. J. & Tyrkkö, J.
(2011) The corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. https://​perswww​.kuleuven​.be​/~u0044428​/clmet3​_0​.htm
Denison, D.
(1993) English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In D. Divjak & E. Dabrowska (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions, Special Volume 1: Constructions all over – case studies and theoretical implications. https://​journals​.linguisticsociety​.org​/elanguage​/constructions​/issue​/view​/17​.html
Disney, S.
(2009) The grammaticalization of ‘be going to’. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 63–82.Google Scholar
Dubossarsky, H., Grossman, E. & Weinshall, D.
(2017) Outta control: Laws of semantic change and inherent biases in word representation models. Proceedings of conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). Copenhagen. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A.
(1953) The auxiliary do. The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2006) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L.
(2001) Connectionism and language acquisition. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (Eds.), Language development: The essential readings (pp. 295–307). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Filppula, M., Klemola, J. & Paulasto, H.
(2008) English and Celtic in contact. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M.
(2007) Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, A.
(1998) On the origin of auxiliary do . English Language and Linguistics, 2, 283–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & A. Stefanowitsch
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Göb, R., McCollin, C. & Ramalhoto, M. F.
(2007) Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert Scales. Quality & Quantity 41, 601–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Hilpert, M. & Koops, C.
(2008) A quantitative approach to the development of complex predicates: The case of Swedish pseudo-coordination with sitta “sit”. Diachronica, 25(2), 242–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Perek, F.
(2015) Meaning change in a petri dish: Constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistics Vanguard. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R.
(1976) Some theoretical issues in the description of the English Verb. Lingua, 40, 331–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.
(1997) The rise of auxiliary do: Verb-non-raising or category-strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95(1), 41–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. & Martin, J.H.
(2009) Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. Second edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Chiu, Y., Hanaki, K., Hegde, D. & Petrov, S.
(2014) Temporal analysis of language through neural language models. Proceedings of the ACL 2014 workshop on language technologies and computational social science, 61–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A.
(1989) Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change, 1, 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. G.
(2000) Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar (Vol. 42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le Loyer, P.
(1605) Discours, et Histoires des Spectres, Visions et Apparitions des Esprits, Anges, Démons et Ames, se montrant visibles aux hommes : Aussi est traicté des extases et ravissemens, de l’essence, nature et origine des Ames, et de leur estat après le deceds de leurs corps: Plus des Magiciens et Sorciers etc. Paris: Buon.Google Scholar
Levy, O. & Goldberg, Y.
(2014) Neural Word Embedding as Implicit Matrix Factorization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27, 2177–2185.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
(1979) Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23: Principles of diachronic syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L.
(1992) Can connectionist models discover the structure of natural language? In R. Morelli, W. M. Brown, D. Anselmi, K. Haberlandt & D. Lloyd (Eds.), Minds, Brains & Computers (pp. 168–189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
(2015) Capturing gradience, continuous change, and quasi-regularity in sound, word, phrase and meaning. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 53–81). Blackwell: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McLeod, P., Plunkett, K. & Rolls, E.
(1998) Introduction to connectionist modelling of cognitive processes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J.
(2013b) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Proceedings of workshop at ICLR.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S. & Dean, J.
(2013a) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (NIPS 2013), 3111–3119.Google Scholar
Norde, M. & Morris, C.
(2018) Derivation without category change: a network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–90). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. & Hilpert, M.
(2017) A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(4), 490–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F.
(2018) The real-time dynamics of individual and community in grammaticalization. Language(4). 867–901. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P.
(2013) EEBOCorp, version 1.0. Leuven: University of Leuven Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
(2016) Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [BE going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 115–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) How constructions are born. The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In B. Busse & R. Möhlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept (Topics in English 104), 157–192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F.
(2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2), 543–581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rehurek, R. & Sojka, P.
(2010) Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. Proceedings of the LREC 2010 workshop on new challenges for NLP frameworks.Google 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, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 107–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tahmasebi, N., Borin, L. & Jatowt, A.
(2018) Survey of computational approaches to diachronic conceptual change detection. Preprint at arXiv.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T.
(2015) The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2012a) The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) On the persistence of ambiguous linguistics context over time: implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description (pp. 231–246). Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 51–80). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2018) Iterated exaptation. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words (pp. 519–544). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. & Genee, I.
(2002) English do: on the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 283–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vanni, L., Ducoffe, M., Precioso, F., Longrée, D. et al.
(2018) Text Deconvolution Salience (TDS) : a deep tool box for linguistic analysis. 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. July 2018 Melbourne.Google Scholar
Warner, A. R.
(1993) English auxiliaries. Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

No author info given
2022.  In Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], Crossref logo
Budts, Sara
2020. A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo
Daugs, Robert
2020.  In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216],  pp. 17 ff. Crossref logo
Daugs, Robert
2022. English modal enclitic constructions: a diachronic, usage-based study of ’d and ’ll . Cognitive Linguistics 33:1  pp. 221 ff. Crossref logo
Diewald, Gabriele
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 278 ff. Crossref logo
Zehentner, Eva
2020. Cognitive reality of constructions as a theoretical and methodological challenge in historical linguistics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34  pp. 371 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.