Article published in:
Vol. 31:2 (2014) ► pp. 159191


de Acosta, Diego
2011Rethinking the genesis of the Romance periphrastic perfect. Diachronica 28. 143–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The Old English have-perfect and its congeners. Journal of English Linguistics 41. 133–164.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald
2008Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1968Mutations of linguistic categories. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 85–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny
1996Aspect and temporal ordering: A contrastive analysis of Dutch and English. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & David Eddington
2006A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82. 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Östen Dahl
1989The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 2, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
2010Language, usage and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Kathleen
1994Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English perfect. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspects and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie
2008Motivaties voor volgordevariatie: Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. Ghent: Ghent University dissertation. Crossref.Google Scholar
2010Een digitaal compilatiecorpus historisch Nederlands. Lexikos 20. 123–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011On ambiguous past participles in Dutch. Linguistics 49. 611–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013The grammaticalization of the have perfect in Dutch: A corpus study of contextual extension and semantic generalization. Language Sciences 36. 103–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich
2000Time and truth: The grammaticalization of resultatives and perfects within a theory of subjectification. Studies in Language 24. 345–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman
2004Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9. 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2007Coll.analysis 3.2. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
2012Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language 36. 477–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C.
2003Cross-linguistic perspectives on syntactic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 529–551. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2006Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2. 243–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2004Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Johan Hendrik
1912De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoordsvormen in ‘t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Artemis Alexiadou
2006Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of English and Germanic. In Jutta M. Hartmann & László Molnárfi (eds.), Comparative studies in Germanic syntax, 237–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Perfects, resultatives, and auxiliaries in Earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 389–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Jaxontov
1988The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1902Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. Munich: Verlag der k. Akademie.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1978Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 4. 157–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijnenburg, Willy J.J. & Tanneke H. Schoonheim
1998Het Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek: De geschiedenis van een project. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 112. 152–164.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1987The strategy of chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Martin Harris & Paola Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 193–223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2012R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reenen, Pieter Th. van & Maaike Mulder
1993Een gegevensbank van 14de-eeuwse Middelnederlandse dialecten op de computer. Lexikos 3. 259–281.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F.
1989Perfect auxiliary variation as a function of transitivity and Aktionsart. In Joseph Emonds, P.J. Mistry, Vida Samiian & Linda Thornburg (eds.), Proceedings from the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), 254–266. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
1990The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In Henning Andersen & Konrad Koerner (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL), 461–488. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993a To be or not to be in Dutch: A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. In Robert S. Kirsner (ed.), Beyond the Low Countries, 85–96. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
1993bSplit intransitivity in German and Dutch: Semantic and pragmatic parameters. In Rosina Lippi-Green (ed.), Recent developments in Germanic linguistics, 97–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Towards a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary selection: Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of German. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7. 129–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2000Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–890. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8. 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2006Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony: A comment. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2. 257–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1975Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. The Slavic and East European Journal 19. 123–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
1972A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1982The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance. In Nigel Vincent & Martin Harris (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb, 71–96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Yoon, Soyeon
2012Constructions, semantic compatibility and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Houston: Rice University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Broekhuis, Hans
2021.  In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217],  pp. 262 ff. Crossref logo
Coussé, Evie
2018.  In Category Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language, 20],  pp. 93 ff. Crossref logo
Gillmann, Melitta
2018.  In Reorganising Grammatical Variation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 203],  pp. 231 ff. Crossref logo
Larsson, Ida
2021.  In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217],  pp. 292 ff. Crossref logo
Sommerer, Lotte
2019. Van Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.). (2018). Category Change from a Constructional Perspective . Constructions and Frames 11:2  pp. 317 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 august 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.