Chapter published in:
Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructional Approaches to Language 32] 2021
► pp. 112
References
Bergs, Alexander, & Diewald, Gabriele
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
(2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
(2010) Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Fleischman, Suzanne
(1995) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
(2006) Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions+online, Special volume 1. https://​www​.constructions​.uni​-osnabrueck​.de​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2014​/06​/2006​-SI​-Cappelle22​-80​-1​-PB​.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2021.
Correia Saavedra, David
(2019) Measurements of Grammaticalization: Developing a quantitative index for the study of grammatical change. PhD Dissertation. Université de Neuchâtel.
Coussé, Evie
(2014) Lexical expansion in the HAVE and BE perfect in Dutch: A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica, 31(2), 159–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
(2013) Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
(2019) The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions+online, Special volume 1. https://​www​.constructions​.uni​-osnabrueck​.de​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2014​/06​/2006​-SI​-Diewald​-24​-82​-1​-PB​.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2020.
(2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Lotte Sommerer, & Elena Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 278–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, & Smirnova, Elena
(2012) Paradigmatic integration: the fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, & Tanja Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change. New reflections. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 111–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
(2007) Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
(2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Higher-order schemas in morphology: What they are, how they work, and where to find them. Word Structure, 12(3), 261–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann, & Björn Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred
(2000) Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tanja
(2001) Auxiliation. An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
(2012) Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neels, Jakob
(2015) The history of the quasi-auxiliary USE(D) TO: A usage-based account. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 5(2), 177–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Heltoft, Lars, & Schøsler, Lene
(Eds.) (2011) Connecting grammaticalisation: The role of paradigmatic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko
(1995) Pragmaticization of meaning in some sentence-final particles in Japanese. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on semantics and pragmatics, (pp. 219–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent
(2015) Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans
(1984) The modals story retold. Studies in Language, 8(3), 305–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, Elena, & Sommerer, Lotte
(2020) The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Lotte Sommerer, & Elena Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 2–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, & Gries, Stefan, Th.
(2003) Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
(1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 57(1), 33–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. and G. Trousdale
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, & Plungian, Vladimir A.
(1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2. 79–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva, & Traugott, Closs E.
(2020) Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Lotte Sommer, & Elena Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 168–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar