Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 1:1 (2014) ► pp. 321
References

References

Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 438–457). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Gildea, S., Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L.
(Eds.) Forthcoming Historical construction grammar Amsterdam John Benjamins
Boas, H.C.
(2013) Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–252).New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J., & Traugott, E.C.
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.L.
(2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22, 381–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Typology. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 337–368). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(1996) The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Defour, T., D’Hondt, U., Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Willems, D.
Forthcoming). In fact, en fait, de fait, au fait: A contrastive study of the synchronic correspondences and diachronic development of English and French cognates. Helsinki: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen.
De Smet, H.
(2012) The course of actualization. Language, 88, 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, SV1-9. http://​elanguage​.net​/journals​/index​.php​/constructions​/article​/viewFile​/24​/29.Google Scholar
Fischer, O.
(2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 31–42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E.J., & Michaelis, L.A.
(Eds.) (2003) Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In E.J. Francis & L.A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 1–27). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fried, M.
(2009) Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A.
(2012) The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 52–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C., & Molinelli, P.
(Eds.) 2010Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in; language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, (pp. 15–31). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haselow, A.
(2011) Typological changes in the Lexicon: Analytic tendencies in english noun formation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N.P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization - A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R., & Petrova, S.
(Eds.) (2009) Information structure and language change: New approaches to word order variation in germanic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, H.H., & Joseph, B.D.
(2009) Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd Edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S.
(2005) Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1995) Thoughts on grammaticalization, 2nd Edition. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
(2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization [Special Issue]. In G. Diewald (Ed.), Zeitschrift für germanistische linguistik, 32, (pp. 152–187).Google Scholar
(2008) Information structure and grammaticalization. In E. Seoane & M.J. López-Couso (Eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 207–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
(2011) Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 438–449). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipka, L.
(2002) English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics & word-formation, 3rd Edition. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Mair, C.
(2004) Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 121–150). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A.
1958L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., & Traugott, E.C.
(1999) Scope and the development of epistemic modality. English Language and Linguistics, 1, 295–317.Google Scholar
Núñez-Pertejo, P.
(1999)  Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica, 71, 135–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, E.
Patten, A.L.
(2012) The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G.
(2003) Phrases for lazy writers in kit form. Language Log, October 27.Google Scholar
(2004) Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log, January 16.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M.
(2004) Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside (s) . In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.E.
(1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley linguistics society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization, 389–405. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C.
(1995) The role of discourse ‘markers’ in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester University.
(2012) The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Forthcoming). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, S. Gildea, E. Smirnova & L. Sommerer (Eds.)
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. , & Trousdale, G.
Forthcoming). Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics.
Trips, C.
(2009) Lexical semantics and diachronic morphology: The development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the history of english. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008a) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008b) A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 1, 156–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008c) Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In S. Fitzmaurice & D. Minkova (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (pp. 301–326). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M.
(2013) Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandewinkel, S., & Davidse, K.
(2008) The interlocking paths of development of emphasizer adjective pure . Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 9, 255–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F.T.
(1969) An historical syntax of the English language, Volume 2. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zhan, F.
(2012) The structure and function of the Chinese copular construction. PhD dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.
Cited by

Cited by 17 other publications

Diewald, Gabriele
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 278 ff. Crossref logo
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza
2021.  In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32],  pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Fong, Ronald
2016. Chinese as satellite-framed. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 3:2  pp. 233 ff. Crossref logo
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
2018. Using more native-like language acquisition processes in the foreign language classroom. Cogent Education 5:1  pp. 1429134 ff. Crossref logo
Halevy, Rivka
2016. The ‘swift of foot’ construction and the phrase structure of the adjectival construct in Hebrew. Studies in Language 40:2  pp. 380 ff. Crossref logo
Higashiizumi, Yuko
2016. The development of confirmation/agreement markers away from the RP in Japanese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:2  pp. 282 ff. Crossref logo
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries
2020. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1  pp. 145 ff. Crossref logo
Lepic, Ryan
2019. A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 Crossref logo
Lesuisse, Mégane & Maarten Lemmens
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 43 ff. Crossref logo
Luraghi, Silvia
2020. From verb to New Event Marker. Studies in Language 44:4  pp. 788 ff. Crossref logo
Luraghi, Silvia, Chiara Naccarato & Erica Pinelli
2020. The u+gen construction in Modern Standard Russian. Cognitive Linguistics 31:1  pp. 149 ff. Crossref logo
Neels, Jakob & Stefan Hartmann
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21],  pp. 137 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199  pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo
Wen, Xu, Kun Yang & Fangtao Kuang
2014. Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1:2  pp. 155 ff. Crossref logo
Xu, Yang
2015. A Constructionalization Approach to Chinese Shang (上) and Xia (下) Spatial Metaphor. Chinese Studies 04:03  pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Yang, Xu & Jin Liu
2017. Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. Constructionalization and constructional changes . Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4:1  pp. 159 ff. Crossref logo
Zhang, Heyou
2014. Where do they come from?. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1:2  pp. 197 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.