Introduction published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 112
References
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H.
(2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. J.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W.
(1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. [URL]
Diessel, H.
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(1999) Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions. Special Vol. 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven [ et al.] (Eds.), Studies on Grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D.
(2021) Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven, usage-based approach. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–122). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. & Falster Jakobsen, L.
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L., Herslund, M. & Falster Jakobsen, L.
(2005) Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School & Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Engelberg, S.
(2009)  Blätter knistern über den Beton. Zwischenbericht aus einer korpuslinguistischen Studie zur Bewegungsinterpretation bei Geräuschverben. In E. Winkler (Ed.), Konstruktionelle Varianz bei Verben (pp. 75–97). Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S.
(2011) Verb valency patterns. A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2014) The many uses of run. Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 117–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
(2006) Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harder, P.
(2006) Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. NyS, 34–35, 92–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2006) Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. Closs Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 11 (pp. 17–35). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T.
(2001) Auxiliation. An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1988) A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–60). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch.
(1988) Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 181–225). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 321, 152–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch., Lima, J. Pinto de & Soares, R.
(2010) Periphrastic voice with ‘see’ in Portuguese. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Paradigmaticity and obligatoriness (pp. 75–100). Routledge (Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, special issue, 42/1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, F.
(1991) Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67 1, 475–546. 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. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L.
Rostila, J.
(2007) Konstruktionsansätze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zitterbart, J. P.
(2002) Zur korrelativen Subordination im Deutschen. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, F.
(2011) Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. In S. Kittilä et al. (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 329–348). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar