Article published in:
Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar
Edited by Nikos Koutsoukos, Kristel Van Goethem and Hendrik De Smet
[Constructions and Frames 10:2] 2018
► pp. 147177
References

References

Andersson, P.
(2014) The fast case. Constructionalization of a Swedish concessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 141–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, P., & Blensenius, K.
(2018) En historia om pseudosamordning. Studier i svensk språkhistoria, 14, 80–101. Vasa: Vasa University Press.Google Scholar
Audring, J., & Booij, G.
(2018) Category change in construction morphology. In K. van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 209–228). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Sommerer, L., Smirnova, E., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, N.
(1916) Svensk språklära. För den högre elementarundervisningen. 9th ed. Stockholm: Bonnier.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M., Ebert, K. H., & de Groot, C.
(2000) The progressive in Europe. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 517–558). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bjerre, A., & Bjerre, T.
(2007) Hybrid phrases: The Danish sidder og phrase. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Typed Feature Structure Grammars (pp. 39–46).Google Scholar
Blensenius, K.
(2015) Progressive constructions in Swedish. (Dissertation.) Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Dept. of Swedish.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., & Roxendal, J.
(2012) Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 474–478). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82, 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations for constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cederschiöld, G.
(1911) Om svenskan som skriftspråk. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Coussé, E.
(2018) Grammaticalization, host-class expansion, and category change. In M. Norde, K. Van Goethem, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 93–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J.
(2018) Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Opportunities, challenges, and potential incompatibilities. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlquist, J.
(1996) De fornsvenska helgonlegenderna. Källor, stil och skriftmiljö. Samlingar utgivna av svenska fornskrift-sällskapet. [The Old Swedish Saints’ lives. Sources, style and literacy], part 262, vol. 82. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2014) Does innovation need reanalysis? In E. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 23–48). Amseterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2017) Entrenchment effects in language change. In H.-J. Smid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (pp. 75–100). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ebert, K. H.
(2000) Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 605–653). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ekberg, L.
(1993) Verbet ta i metaforisk och grammatikaliserad användning. Språk och stil, 3, 105–139.Google Scholar
Francis, E. J., & Michaelis, L. A.
(2003) Mismatch. Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Henriksson, H.
(2006) Aspektualität ohne Aspekt? Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hesse, A.
(2009) Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Tübingen & Basel: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2012) Diachronic constructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructional change in English. Studies in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holm, G.
(1958) Syntaxgeografiska studier över två nordiska verb. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1987) Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. Closs
(2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1895) En sproglig værdiforskydning. Og = at . Dania, 3, 145–182.Google Scholar
Josefsson, G.
(1991) Pseudocoordination – a VP + VP coordination. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 47, 130–156.Google Scholar
(2014) Pseudocoordination in Swedish with ‘go’ and the “surprise effect”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 93, 26–50.Google Scholar
Kinn, T., Blensenius, K., & Andersson, P.
(Submitted). Posture, location, and activity in Mainland Scandinavian pseudocoordinations.
Kinn, T.
(2018) Pseudocoordination in Norwegian. Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants. In Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 75–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kjeldahl, A.
(2010) The syntax of quirky verbal morphology. (Dissertation.) Aarhus: University of Aarhus, Dept. of English.Google Scholar
Kvist Darnell, U.
(2008) Pseudosamordningar i svenska. Särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Institutionen för lingvistik.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(2015) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(2005) Aspectual posture verb constructions. Dutch Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(3), 183–217.Google Scholar
Lødrup, H.
(2002) The syntactic structure of Norwegian pseudocoordinations. Studia Linguistica, 56(2), 121–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) There is no reanalysis in Norwegian pseudo-coordinations (except when there is). In H. P. Helland & C. Meklenborg Salvesen (Eds.), Affaire(s) de grammaire. Mélanges offerts à Marianne Hobæk Haff à l’occasion de ses soixante-cinq ans (pp. 43–65). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ottelin, O.
(1900) Studier öfver Codex Bureanus I. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Persson, P.
(1918) Syntaktiska anmärkningar. In Studier tillegnade Esaias Tegnér den 13 januari 1918 (pp. 444–454). Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H., & Makin, V. S.
(1999) Prototype versus exemplar models. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 205–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
SAG = Teleman, U., Hellberg, S., & Andersson, E. (1999) Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
SAOB = . Lund 1897– (In addition to the online version: saob.se)Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H.
(2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring: Theoretical premises, practical problems, and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(3), 531–577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (pp. 9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sundén, D. A.
(1931) Svensk språklära i sammandrag för allmänna läroverken, kommunala mellanskolor m.m. 28 ed. Stockholm: J. Beckman.Google Scholar
Söderwall, K. F.
(1884–1953) Ordbok Öfver svenska medeltids-språket [Dictionary of Swedish language in the Middle Ages], volume I–III. Supplement, volume IV–V. Lund: Svenska fornskriftsällskapet.Google Scholar
Thorell, O.
(1951) Fem moseböcker på fornsvenska – en språklig undersökning på grundval av de bevarade handskrifterna. Uppsala: Svenska fornskriftssällskapet.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L.
(2007) The syntax of tenselessness. Tense/mood/aspect-agreeing infinitivals. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) The syntax of surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 84, 181–224.Google Scholar
Östergren, O.
(1901) Är sammanfallet af och och att att hänföra till fornsvensk tid? Språk och stil, 1, 82–108.Google Scholar