Article published in:
On mood and speech function and the ‘why’ of text analysis: In honour of Margaret Berry
Edited by Lise Fontaine, Miriam Taverniers and Kristin Davidse
[Functions of Language 26:1] 2019
► pp. 5663
References
Adolphs, Svenja
2006Introducing electronic text analysis: A practical guide for language and literary studies. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael
2013Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4). 443–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
(eds.) 2000Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea
2015Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Margaret
1982Review of M.A.K. Halliday (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning . Nottingham Linguistic Circular 11(1). 64–94.Google Scholar
1989They’re all out of step except our Johnny: A discussion of motivation (or the lack of it) in systemic linguistics. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 31. 5–67.Google Scholar
1996What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. In Margaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 1–64. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
2012Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3). 219–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 479–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2016How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 83–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2007Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32(2). 336–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? View[z]: Vienna English Working Papers 18(2). 3–23.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2008Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 47–79. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow
2000Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), vii–xxviii.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2001Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2007Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 301. 39–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 1991. 72–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter
2016Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 301. 115–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2015A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 31. 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Annette Mantlik
2015Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia 133(4). 583–623. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand & Evie Coussé
2014Introduction: The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. In Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 1–19. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. & Geoffrey S. Nathan
1992First he called her a philologist and then she insulted him. In Diane Brentari, Gary N. Larson & Lynn A. MacLeod (eds.), The joy of grammar: A festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley, 351–367. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Full-text

The author and the text in radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar, or why historical linguists have started analysing text again
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1  pp. 22 ff. Crossref logo
Taverniers, Miriam
2021. Modelling interfaces with context in SFL. Functions of Language 28:3  pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2022. 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.