Part of
Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructional Approaches to Language 32] 2021
► pp. 185217
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2016Sentence Types. In: The Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood, ed. by Jan Nuyts and Johan van der Auwera. OUP, 141–165.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny
2019Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12(3), 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin
2013Unselbständiger dass- und ob-VL-Satz. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach and Hans Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 247–265.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2016Construction Morphology. In: Andrew Hippsley and Gergory Stump (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: CUP, 424–448.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva
1989Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020Putting connections centre stage in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 318–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions online 1 (7). 1–18.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008A constructionist approach to complementation: evidence from Ancient Greek. Linguistics, 46, p. 571–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2019Zur Autonomie indirekter Redewiedergabe – Eine diachrone Perspektive. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 47(1), 70–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2015Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 295–321. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2015Modal particles in different comminicative types. Construtions and Frames 7, 218–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 278–315.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
2012 “Paradigmatic integration: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario”. Grammaticalization and Language Change. New Reflections, ed. by Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans, 111–133. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DUDEN
2016Die Grammatik. Band 4, Ed. 9. Mannheim: Dudenverlag (Der Duden in 12 Bänden).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter
2006Der Satz 2. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Kare Solfjeld & Anneliese Pitz
2018Der Konjunktiv: Formen und Spielräume (Stauffenburg Linguistik Band 100). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2014Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn, Justyna A. Robinson (eds.) Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, John Benjamins, pp. 443–485.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Diessel, Holger
2016Frequency effects in grammar. In M. Aronoff (Ed.). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund
2007Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar. in Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. vol.1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP, 276–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie
1994Zur Konkurrenz von Konjunktiv und Modalverbfügungen im älteren Deutsch. In Tromsö University working papers on language and linguistics: Nordlyd, 116–141.Google Scholar
1997Modalverben als Substitutionsformen des Konjunktivs in früheren Sprachstufen des Deutschen? Die Verhältnisse in der Hypotaxe. In: Gerd Fritz, Rosemarie Lühr, Roswitha Peilicke & Thomas Gloning (Hgg.), Untersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 187). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 177–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Svetlana
2008Die Interaktion von Tempus und Modus: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des deutschen Konjunktivs 30. Heidelberg: Winter (Germanistische Bibliothek).Google Scholar
2013Der Ausdruck indirekter Aufforderungen im Vergleich Althochdeutsch – Neuhochdeutsch. Eine Fallstudie zur Entwicklung des Modusgebrauchs im abhängigen Satz. In: Franciszek Grucza (Hg.), Akten des XII. internaitonalen Germanistenkongresses Warschau 2010: Diachronische, diatopische und typologische Aspekte des Sprachwandels; Interferenz-Onomastik; Sprachgeschichte und Textsorten; Deutsche Dialekte und Regionalsprachen (17). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 45–52.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin
2013Akkusativobjektsätze. In: Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (Hgg.), Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 441–457.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold M.
1985Speech Acts Distinctions in Syntax. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 155–196. CUP.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena
2016Die Entwicklung des deutschen zu-Infinitivs: Eine Korpusstudie. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 138: 4, 491–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Deutsche Komplementsatzstrukturen: Synchrones System und diachrone Entwicklung. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2–42.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2014Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman, Gijsbert Rutten (eds), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 141–180. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, Romain François, Lionel Henry & Kirill Müller
2018dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.7.5. [URL]Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva
2018Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialization and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics, 22(1), 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, Lotte, Smirnova, Elena (eds.) Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 168–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1  pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 may 2024. 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.