References

References

Allen, C. L.
(1995) Case marking and reanalysis: grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Chang, F.
(2012) The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment, and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Language, 88(1), 45–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Rowland, C., Freudenthal, D. & Chang, F.
(2014) Avoiding dative overgeneralization errors: semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 218–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Appel, R. & Muysken, P.
(1987) Language contact and bilingualism. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, P. & Stein, A.
editors (2002) Tobler-Lommatzsch: Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch. 4 CD-ROMs und DVD mit Begleitbuch. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
(1993) Argument structure. In J. Jacobs, et al. (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, Vol. 1, (p. 903–914). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, D.
(1993) English historical syntax. Longon: Longman.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P.
(2001) Die grammatische Integration von Fremdwörtern. Was fängt das Deutsche mit seinen Latinismen und Anglizismen an? In G. Stickel, (Ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, (pp. 183–209). Berlin: de Gruyter.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Das Fremdwort im Deutschen. de Gruyter Studium. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engelberg, S., Meliss, M., Proost, K., and Winkler, E.
(Eds.) (2015) Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Field, F.
(2002) Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. & van der Leek, F.
(1983) The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 337–368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gradon, P.
(Ed.) (1965) Dan Michel’s Ayenbite of Inwyt or Remorse of Conscience, Vol. I of The Early English Text Society 278. [reprint of 1866]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.
(Ed.) (1978) Universals of human language, Vol. 1. Method and Theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, E., Seržant, I. & Witzlack-Makarevich, A.
Eds. Forthcoming Journal of Language Contact. Special Issue on Valency and Transitivity in Contact Leiden Brill
Haugen, E.
(1969) The Norwegian language in America: A study in bilingual behavior. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Highfield, A. & Valdman, A.
(Eds.) (1981) Historicity and variation in Creole studies. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. & Joseph, B. D.
(1996) Language history, language change, and language relationship. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holler, A.
(2015) Grammatik und Integration. Wie fremd ist die Argumentstruktur nicht-nativer Verben? In S. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost, & E. Winkler, (Eds.). Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion, (pp. 397–416). Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Holler, A. & Scherer, C.
(2010) Zur Argumentstruktur entlehnter Verben. In C. Scherer, & A. Holler (Eds.). Nicht-native Einheiten und Strukturen, (pp. 183–198). Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ingham, R.
(2012) The transmission of Anglo-Norman: Language history and language acquisition, Vol. 9 of Series Language faculty and beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1976) Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 89–150.Google Scholar
(1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T.
(Eds.) 1993Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L.
(2002) Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Jones, M. C. & Esch, E., (Eds.). Language change: the interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, (pp. 285–313). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Remodeling grammar. Copying conventionalization, grammaticalization. In Siemund, P. & Kintana, N., (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages, (pp. 61–79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. C. & Esch, E.
(Eds.) (2002) Language change: the interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
King, R.
(2000) The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing. A Prince Edward Island French case study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A.
(Eds.) (2000) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second Edition (PPCME2). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Laurent, F.
(2008) La Somme le Roi. Société des Anciens Textes Français, Paris / Abbeville: Paillart.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Argument Structure. (http://​www​.oxfordbibliographies​.com, consulted on 21 September 2018).
Martineau, F.
(Ed.) (2009) Le corpus MCVF. Modéliser le changement: les voies du français. Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2007) The borrowability of grammatical categories. In Matras, Y. & Sakel, J., (Eds.). Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, (pp. 31–74). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. & Sakel, J.
(Eds.) (2007) Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A.
(1978) Language contact. In Greenberg, J., (Ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 1 Method and Theory, (pp. 93–122). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Muysken, P.
(1981) Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In A. Highfield & A. Valdman (Eds.). Historicity and variation in Creole studies, (pp. 52–78). Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C.
(2002) Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. & Jake, J.
(1995) Matching lemmas in a bilingual language production model: Evidence from intrasentential codeswitching. Linguistics, 33, 981–1024. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Möhlig-Falke, R.
(2012) The Early English impersonal construction. An analysis of verbal and constructional meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J.
(1962) Old French and Modern English idiom. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition. The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S.
(2018) Borrowing. Loanwords in the speech community and in the grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Primus, B.
(1999) Rektionsprinzipien. In H. Wegener (Ed.), Deutsch. kontrastiv. Typologisch-vergleichende Untersuchungen zur deutschen Grammatik, (pp. 135–170). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2012) Semantische Rollen. Heidelbert: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Prins, A. A.
(1948) French phrases in English. Neophilologus, 32, 28–39, 73–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prévost, S. & Stein, A.
(Eds.) (2013) Syntactic reference corpus of Medieval French (SRCMF). Lyons: ENS; Paris: Lattice; Lyon/Stuttgart Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Rothwell, W.
(1976) The role of French in thirteenth century England. Bulletin of the John Rylauds Library, 58, 445–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1980) Lexical borrowing in a medieval context. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 63, 118–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, W. & Trotter, D.
(Eds.) (2001) Anglo-Norman Dictionary 2. Online Version. http://​www​.anglo​-norman​.net/.
Scherer, C. & Holler, A.
Eds. Nicht-native Einheiten und Strukturen Berlin / New York de Gruyter
Siemund, P. & Kintana, N.
(Eds.) (2008) Language contact and contact Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stickel, G.
(Ed.) 2001Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T.
(1988) Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Togeby, K.
(1983) Grammaire française, vol. II. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Trips, C. & Stein, A.
(2018) A comparison of multi-genre and single-genre corpora in the context of contact-induced change. In R. Whitt, (Ed.). Diachronic corpora, genre and language change, Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. pages 241-260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Contact-induced changes in the argument structure of Middle English verbs on the model of Old French. In E. Grossman, I. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.). Journal of Language Contact. Special Issue on Valency and Transitivity in Contact. Leiden: Brill. pages 232-267.Google Scholar
Troberg, M.
(2008) Dynamic two-place indirect verbs in French: A synchronic and diachronic study in variation and change of valence. University of Toronto, PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Wegener, H.
(Ed.) 1999Deutsch kontrastiv. typologisch-vergleichende Untersuchungen zur deutschen Grammatik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Whitt, R.
Ed. Forthcoming Diachronic corpora, genre and language change Studies in Corpus Linguistics Amsterdam/Philadelphia Benjamins Crossref
Winford, D.
(2003) An Introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, J.
(2009) A typology of verbal borrowings. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM] 211). Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E.
(2006) Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 111–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, A. & Maling, J.
(1990) Unaccusative, passive and quirky case. In A. Zaenen & J. Maling (Eds.). Modern Icelandic syntax, (p. 137–152). New York: Academic. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eds. Modern Icelandic syntax New York Academic