Article published In:
Vol. 35:4 (2018) ► pp.487524
Allen, Robert L.
1966The verb system of Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1989Historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1976Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald & Antoinette Renouf
1996Chronicling the times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 721. 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Rolf Harald, Ton Dijkstra & Robert Schreuder
1997Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1). 94–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna & Spike Gildea
2015Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Johanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds). Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1983English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag
2013The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins
2009Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1968Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
1977Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1995The Aktionsart of deverbal nouns in English. In Pier Marco Bertinetto (ed). Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 27–42. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
1998Aspectuality and countability: A cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2(1). 37–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cetnarowska, Bozena
1993The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V.
1987The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2009Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences 311. 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976The syntax of action nominals. A cross-language study. Lingua 401. 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Sandra A. Thompson
1985Lexical nominalizations. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 31, 349–398. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, Claire
1998Diachronic word-formation: A corpus-based study of derived nominalizations in the history of English. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1991Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. (revised). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Eva & Dagmar Divjak
(eds.) 2015Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
1996The French influence on English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2008Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12(1). 55–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Susanne Flach, Jukka Tyrkkö & Hans-Jürgen Diller
2015Corpus of Late Modern English texts (version 3.1).Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’Hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018The changing functions of competing forms. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2005Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics 37(6). 889–917. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2002Nominalization and argument structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 271. 67–90.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Chad Langford
2012Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Donner, Morton
1986The gerund in Middle English. English Studies 671. 394–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Wolfgang U. Wurzel, Willi Mayerthaler & Osvald Panagl
(eds.) 1987Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Studies in language companion series, 101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Einenkel, Eugen
1914Die Entwicklung des englischen Gerundiums. Anglia 381. 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E.
1973The derived nominals, gerunds, and participles in Chaucer’s English. In Braj B. Kachru & Robert B. Lees (eds.). Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 185–189. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, David
2013Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1992Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 17–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32(2). 336–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren
2016From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology. Functions of Language 23(1). 82–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Stefan Hartmann
2016Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Liesbet Heyvaert
2018Category change in the English gerund: Tangled web or fine-tuned constructional network?, In Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.), Category change from a Constructional Perspective, 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Nikki van de Pol
2016Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English -ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20(2). 185–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Hendrik De Smet & Liesbet Heyvaert
2015aWhat it means to verbalize: The changing discourse functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43(1). 36–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Liesbet Heyvaert & Charlotte Maekelberghe
2015bHow do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4). 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1980The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 561. 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2014On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2003A cognitive-functional approach to deverbal nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004Towards a symbolic typology of -ing nominalizations. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 493–506. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Stefan Th. Gries
2009Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiraga, Masako K.
1994Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 221. 5–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2017Construction Grammar as cognitive structuralism: The interaction of constructional networks and processing in the diachronic evolution of English comparative correlatives. English Language and Linguistics 21(2). 349–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houston, Ann
1989The English gerund: Syntactic change and discourse function. In Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), Language change and variation, 173–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
2005Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jack, George B.
1988The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 121. 15–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1946A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part V. Vol. IV: Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1983Word formation and the lexicon. In Frances A. Ingeman (ed.), Mid-America Linguistics Conference (MALC) 1982, 3–29. University of Kansas.Google Scholar
2005Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisbye, Torben
1971An historical outline of English syntax. Aarhus: Akademisk boghandel.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
1993Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja
2006The origin of English gerundial constructions: A case of French influence? In Andrew J. Johnston, Ferdinand von Mengden & Stefan Thim (eds.), Language and text: Current perspectives on English and German historical linguistics and philology, 179–195. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
2007Some problems connected with the analysis of gerunds with direct object in Middle English. In Winfried Rudolf, Thomas Honegger & Andrew J. Johnston (eds.), Clerks, wives and historians: Essays on medieval language and literature, 213–233. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith
2009Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B.
1966On a transformational analysis of compounds: A reply to Hans Marchand. Indogermanische Forschungen 711. 1–13.Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Liesbet Heyvaert
2016Indefinite nominal gerunds, or the particularization of a reified event. English Studies 97(3). 317–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L.
2004Nominalization, verbalization: Constraining a typology of transcategorial operations. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2006Constraining nominalization: function / form competition. Linguistics 44(5). 973–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M. S.
1994Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1912Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D.
2002Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta
2011Gender differences in English syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alexander
1978Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2(3). 415–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F.
1960A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Ramoulin-Brunberg & Heiki Manilla
2011The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation & Change 231. 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2014On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Cogling Days 6, Ghent, Belgium, December 12.
Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo
2015Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 321. 34–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
1999Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günther & René Dirven
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rainer, Franz
1988Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In Geert Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.). Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1973Nouniness. In Osamu Fujimura (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic research, 137–257. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald
1988Zero derivation and the overt analogue criterion. In Michael T. Hammond & Michael P. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 155–175. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S.
1997The parameter of aspect. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova
2017Workshop proposal for the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael
2005Practical English usage. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2010The genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141–166. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji
1985The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
1999The compound gerund in Early Modern English. In Sheila Embleton, John E. Joseph & Hans-Joseph Niederehe (eds.), The emergence of the modern language sciences: Studies on the transition from historical-comparative to structural linguistics in honour of E.F.K. Koerner, 265–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1988The relation of grammar to cognition. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2000Possessives in English: An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004The ecology of constructions. In Günther Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation, 49–74. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
Forthcoming. Modeling language change with constructional networks.
van de Velde, Freek
2014Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), The extending scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1972Rule Inversion. Lingua 291. 209–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederik Th
1973An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wurff, Wim van der
1993Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Jaap van Marle (ed.), Historical linguistics 1991, 363–375. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang
1987System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Willie Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (eds.), Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 59–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva
2014From phrase to clause(-like): On the development of present participle and verbal noun in Middle Scots. VIEWS 231, ([URL]).
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Fonteyn, Lauren
2019. A corpus-based view on the (aspectual-)semantics of Modern English nominalizations. Language Sciences 73  pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat
2022. Situation-bound utterances and constructional networks: The evolution of the Hebrew see-farewell family. Lingua 272  pp. 103328 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot
2022. Analogical Interference in Constructionalization: The Emergence of the Hebrew Desiderative ba le-X Y. Cognitive Semantics 8:1  pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hagit Shefer
2023. Pragmatic overlap and consecutive change: The case of Hebrew (inter)subjective markers yeʃ/en matsav/sikuy. Journal of Pragmatics 207  pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Sokolova, Svetlana
2021. When three is company: The relation between aspect and metaphor in Russian aspectual triplets. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:1  pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2023. 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.