Cover not available
Part of
A Constructional Account of Verb-Forming Suffixation
Jacqueline Laws
[Constructional Approaches to Language 36] 2023
► pp. 237–244

References

Adams, V.
(2001) Complex Words in English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K.
(2021) “That’s well good”: A Re-emergent Intensifier in Current British English. Journal of English Linguistics, 49(1), 18-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S.
(1971) The role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387-96.Google Scholar
Audring J.
(2019) Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, K.
(2018) Canonical tag questions in contemporary British English. In V. Brezina, R. Love & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 96-119). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: evidence form case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I.
(2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BE06: The British English 2006 Corpus
. Baker, P. (2007–2008) Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Biber, D.
(1988) Variation across speech and writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S.
(2019) Register, Genre, and Style. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, B., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
BLOB: The Before LOB 1931 Corpus
. Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Smith, N. (2003–2006) Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2000) Resultative Constructions in English and German. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, Ca: CSLI.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(2005) Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In W. U. Dressler, D. Kastovsky, O. E. Pfeiffer, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Polysemy and Construction Morphology. In F. Moerdijk, A. van Santen & R. Tempelaars (Eds.), Leven met woorden (pp. 355-364). Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie.Google Scholar
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2017) Inheritance and motivation in construction morphology. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Defaults in morphological theory (pp. 18–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure, 12(3), 385–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowie, J., Wallis, S. and Aarts, B.
(2013) Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: mapping the impact of genre. In Arrese, J. I. M., Carretero, M., Hita, J. A. and van der Auwera, J. (Eds.), English modality: core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 57-94). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BNCweb
([URL])
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, H.
(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Briscoe, E. J., Copestake, A. & V. de Paiva
(1993) Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
British National Corpus, version 4.4
(2018) Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved via BNCweb (CQP-Edition) from [URL]
The British National Corpus
2014: User manual and reference guide, version 1.1. Retrieved from [URL]
Cambridge Dictionary
Retrieved from [URL]
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions Special Volume 1, 1-28.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H.
(1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767-811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins English Dictionary
Retrieved from [URL]
Cowie, C.
(1998) Diachronic Word-Formation: A Corpus-Based Study of Derived Nominalizations in the History of English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
(2006) Economical with the truth: Register categories and the functions of -wise viewpoint adverbs in the British National Corpus. ICAME Journal, 30, 5-36.Google Scholar
CQPweb
Retrieved from [URL]
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Gunter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dictionary.com
Retrieved from [URL]
Dixon, R. M. W.
(2014) Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, P.
(1977) On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns. Language, 53(4), 810-842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T.
(1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19, 61-74.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar.’ In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Signmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 35–55). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language. 64, 501–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
FLOB: The Freiburg-LOB Corpus. =
Mair, C. (1991–1996) Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
FrameNet
Retrieved from [URL]
Fuchs, R.
(2017) Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men?: Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 345-374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A. C.
(2014) Derivation in Middle English: Regional and Text Type Variation. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google 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(3), 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a) Argument Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates. Mind & Language. 28(4). 435-465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b) Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & G. Trousdale (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N.
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
(2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2001) Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: the role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences, 23, 503-524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D.
(2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the associations of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16. 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Converging evidence II: more on the association of verbs and constructions. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Experimental and Empirical Methods in the Study of Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp. 59-72). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
(1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groupings
Retrieved from [URL]
Guz, W.
(2009) English affixal nominalizations across language registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), pp. 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B.
(2011) Discovering constructions by means of collostruction analysis: The English denominative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2), 211–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2. 207–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D. & Berglund Prytz, Y.
(2008) Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – A Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T.
(2017) Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 310-329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 1-12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2008) Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding: 105-129. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
(2016) Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D.
(1992) An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Dissertation/Tech. Rep. No. 92/676. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, Computer Science Division. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaunisto, M.
(2007) Variation and Change in the Lexicon: A Corpus-based Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempf, L.
(2016) Modeling polyfunctional word formation patterns. A Construction Morphology account of adjectival derivation in the history of German. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13(2). 140–163.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G.
(1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33. 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laws, J., Ryder, C. & Jaworska, S.
(2017) A diachronic corpus-based study into the effects of age and gender on the usage patterns of verb-forming suffixation in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3): 375-402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laws, J. and Ryder, C.
(2018) Register variation in spoken British English: The case of verb-forming suffixation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laws, J.
(2019) Profiling complex word usage in the speech of English preschool children: frequency patterns and transparency characteristics. First Language, 39(6). 593–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
in preparation) Grammatical function and verb-forming suffixation.
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N.
(2009) Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehnert, M.
(1971) Reverse dictionary of Present-Day English. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1985) Lexical semantics in review: an introduction. In B. Levin (Ed.), Lexical semantics in review. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In S. J. Billings, J. P. Boyle & A. M. Griffith (Eds.), Papers from the 35th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society Part 1 (pp. 223-247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport, M.
(1988) Non-event -er nominals: a probe into argument structure. Linguistics, 26, 1067-83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M.
(1995) Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R.
(2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation (pp. 375-427). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 78-104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R., & Baayen, H.
(1999) Nominalizations in a calculus of lexical semantic representations. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1998 (pp. 175–198). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, M.
(2012) Rival suffixes: synonymy, competition, and the emergence of productivity. In A. Ralli, G. E. Booij, S. Scalise & A. Karasimos (Eds.), Morphology and the architecture of grammar: On-line proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (pp. 192–203). Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Lindsay, M. and M. Aronoff
(2013) Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In N. Hathout & F. Montermini, Gilles Boyé, and Jesse Tseng (Eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of the 7th Décembrettes (pp. 133-153). Germany: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
LOB: The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus
. Leech, G., Johansson, S. & Hofland, K. (1970–1978) Available online at [URL].Google Scholar
Love, R., Brezina, V., McEnery, T., Hawtin, A., Hardie A. & Dembry, C.
(2019) Functional variation in the Spoken BNC2014 and the potential for register analysis. Register Studies 1(2). 296–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R, & N. Curry
(2021) Recent change in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s. English Language & Linguistics, 25(3), 537–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, C.
(2011) Semantics and Word Formation. The Semantic Development of Five French Suffixes in Middle English. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina V. & McEnery T.
(2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. Special Issue of International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319-344.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. V. Wiegand, P. Stockwell & A. Hennessey
(2019) Speech-bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature. 28(4) 326–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H.
(1969) The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-diachronic Approach (2nd ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster
Retrieved from [URL]
Oxford English Dictionary (OED online)
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [URL] March 2023.
Palmer, C. C.
(2009) Borrowings, Derivational Morphology, and Perceived Productivity in English, 1300–1600. PhD dissertation, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Perek, F. & Lemmens, M.
(2010) Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: the case of a constructional split. CogniTextes, 5. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics. 23, 601–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 61-85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. Lebeaux, D. and Frost, L. A.
(1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(1999) Morphological productivity: structural constraints in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2018) Word-formation in English. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) On the mechanisms of morphological rivalry: A new look at competing verb-deriving affixes in English. In B. Reitz & S. Rieuwerts (Eds.), Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings (pp. 63–76). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Plag, I., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Baayen, R. H.
(1999) Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 209-228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
PropBank
Retrieved from [URL]
Prytz Y. B.
(2020) Return to the future: Exploring spoken language in the BNC and BNC2014. In E. Jonsson & T. Larsson (Eds.), Voices Past and Present – Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts: In honor of Merja Kytö (pp. 227-246). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
(1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. and Boguraev, B.
(1996) Introduction: lexical semantics in context. In J. Pustejovsky & B. Boguraev (Eds.), Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Quinion, M.
(2002) Ologies and Isms: Word Beginnings and Endings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.
(1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97-134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B.
(2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rautionaho, P. & R. Fuchs
(2021) Recent change in stative progressives: a collostructional investigation of British English in 1994 and 2014. English Language & Linguistics, 25(1), 35-60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Burnard
(2007) Retrieved from [URL]
Rodríguez-Puente, P.
(2020) Register variation in word-formation processes: The development of -ity and -ness in Early Modern English. International Journal of English Studies 20(2): 147-169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Nominalizations in Early Modern English: A cross-register perspective. In E. Seoane & D. Biber (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to register variation. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 103 (pp. 259-289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, P., Säily, T. & Suomela, J.
(2022) New methods for analysing diachronic suffix competition across registers: How -ity gained ground on -ness in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27(4): 506-528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M. E.
(1999) Bankers and Blue-chippers: An Account of -er Formations in Present-day English. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 269–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, T.
(2011) Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119-141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, T., & Suomela, J.
(2017) Types2: Exploring word-frequency differences in corpora. In T. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh, & T. Säily (Eds.) Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Helsinki: VARIENG.Google Scholar
Säily, T., V. González-Díaz & J. Suomela
(2018) Variation in the productivity of adjective comparison in present-day English. In V. Brezina, R. Love & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 159–184). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, A.
(2011) On the productivity of verbal prefixation in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Language in Performance 44. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schmid, H-J.
(2011) English Morphology and Word-formation: An Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Schneider, G.
(2022) Recent changes in spoken British English in verbal and nominal constructions. In S. Flach & M. Hilpert (Eds.), Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New approaches to variability and change (pp. 173-195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulte, M.
(2015) The semantics of derivational morphology: A synchronic and diachronic investigation of the suffixes -age and -ery in English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.
(1983) Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport and A. Zaenen (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar pp. 143-157. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.
(2003) Collostructions: investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, G.
(2007) A Dictionary of English Affixes: Their Function and Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Stratton, J. M.
(2020) A diachronic analysis of the adjective intensifier well from Early Modern English to Present Day English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 65(2), 216-245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M.
(2002) Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B.
(1988) Categories and categorization in morphology. Lublin: Catholic University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T.
(1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 385-396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, E.
(1981) Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1, 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A.
(2013) Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In M. Bieswanger & A. Koll-Stobbe (Eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Variability. Language Competence and Language Awareness in Europe. (pp. 3-11). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
WordNet
Retrieved from [URL]
Yao, X. & Collins, P.
(2019) Developments in Australian, British, and American English Grammar from 1931 to 2006: An Aggregate, Comparative Approach to Dialectal Variation and Change. Journal of English Linguistics, 47(2) 120-149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar