Chapter published in:
Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in honor of Henning Andersen
Edited by Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Lene Schøsler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 345] 2019
► pp. 271294
References

References

Andersen, Hanne Leth
2007Marquers discursifs propositionnels. Langue française 154. 13–28.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
2001aActualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization. linguistic change in progress, 226–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2001bIntroduction. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2001cMarkedness and the theory of linguistic change. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization. linguistic change in progress, 21–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica 23. 231–258.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Thorhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal Papers, 11–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2007La co-variation des marquers discursifs "bon, c'est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand-même, quoi et si vous voulez": une question d'identité? Langue française 154. 78–93.Google Scholar
Benzakour, Fouzia
1984Les relatives déictiques. In Georges Kleiber (ed.), Recherches en pragma-sémantique, 75–106. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Bolly, Catherine
2010Pragmaticalisation du marqueur discursif `tu vois'. De la perception à l'évidence et de l'évidence au discours. In Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2010, New Orleans, United States) (eds) F. Neveu, J. Durand, T. Klingler, Sophie Prévost & V. Muni-Toké. Paris: Institut de linguistique française.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadiot, Pierre
1976Relatives et infinitives «déictiques» en français. DRLAV 13. 1–64.Google Scholar
1978Où t'as ta femme? Semantikos 2: 2–3. 1–20.Google Scholar
Conti, Virginie
2010La construction en avoir SN qui SV (« j’ai ma copine qui habite à Paris ») : une forme de dispositif clivé ? Linx 62–63. 63–87.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane & Claus D. Pusch
2007Présentation. Les marqueurs discursifs. Sens et variation. Langue française 154. 3–12.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Mike D. Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft & Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen
1996Content, expression and structure: studies in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann
2010A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: evidence from English, German and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2487–2505.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, Naoyo
2000Elle est là qui pleure : construction à thème spatialement localisé. Langue française 127. 95–111.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Pour une sémantique des constructions grammaticales. Thème et thématicité. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse
1988Le bon usage. Paris-Louvain: Duculot.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft
2011Grammatik over det danske sprog. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaubert, Anna
1990La lecture pragmatique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold
1996Reconstruction in morphology. In Marc Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method revisited, 218–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen
2009Konstruktionsdannelse som grammering. Ny forskning i grammatik 16. 191–210.Google Scholar
Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen & Lene Schøsler
2014Reanalysis and grammaticalization of constructions. In Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change, 169–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015Regrammation and paradigmatization. Reanalyses of the deictic relative construction with progressive function in French. Journal of French Language Studies 25. 265–293.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Derfor har vi brug for paradigmer. In Marie Herget Christensen, Jan Heegård, Lars Heltoft, Eva Skafte Jensen, Sune Sønderberg Mortensen & Peter Juul Nielsen (eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik, 124–143. København: Dansk Sprognævn.Google Scholar
Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen & Erling Strudsholm
2013The relevance of deixis in the description of the predicative relative clause. In Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Jan Lindschouw (eds.), Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages, 207–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
2000Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle : la relative de perception comme construction présentative. Langue française 127. 49–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39. 463–516.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1968Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Robert
1981Thème et thématisation de l’énoncé. Travaux linguistique de Gant 8. 27–48.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning
1997Note sur la dislocation du sujet : thématisation ou focalisation? InGeorges Kleiber & Martin Riegel (eds.), Les formes du sens. Études de linguistique française, médievale et générale offerte à Robert Martin à l'occasion de ses 60 ans, 281–294. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning & Hanne Korzen
1999Kapitel IX, 1. Topologi 1. København: Handelshøjskolen.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler
2011Connecting grammaticalization. The role of paradigmatic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ponchon, Thierry
1994Semantique lexicale et sémantique grammaticale: le verbe faire en français médiéval. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Jean-Christophe Pellat & René Rioul
2009 [1994]Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Univesitaires de France.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan & Julie Glickman
2015Origin and development of French parenthetical verbs. In Stefan Schneider, Julie Glickman & Mathieu Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical verbs, 163–188. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, Dominique & Bart Defrancq
2000L'attribut de l'objet et les verbes de perception. Langue française 127. 6–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, Marc
1997Grammaire critique du français. Louvain-la-Neuve: Hachette Duculot.Google Scholar