Article published in:
Functions of Language
Vol. 21:3 (2014) ► pp. 297332


Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert
2008Aspect and aspectuality. In Bas Arts & April MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 244–269. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
2000The structure of modern English: A linguistic introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2005The syntax and semantics of Binding Theory. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1984How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 437–449. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Thomas
2011Cohesion: A discourse perspective. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cloran, Carmel
2010Rhetorical unit analysis and Bakhtin’s chronotype. Functions of Language 17(1). 29–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2001Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions. RASK Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation 14. 91–134.Google 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. 55–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010English -ing clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48(6). 1153–1193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2005Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3). 449–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Disterheft, Dorothy
1981Remarks on the history of the Indo-European infinitive. Folia Linguistica Historica 2(1). 3–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W.
2005A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke
2006English grammar: A university course. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2003Argument structure. In John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf & William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 11–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick
2006The English gerund-participle: A comparison with infinitives. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Wim van der Wurff
2006Syntax. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 109–199. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1993English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Grammar as an adaptive evolutionary product. In Christopher S. Butler, Raquel Downing & Julia Lavid (eds.), Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse: In honour of Angela Downing, 1–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012aThe adaptive approach to grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 27–51.
2012bToward a diachronic typology of relative clauses. In Bernard Comrie & Zarina Fernández (eds.), Relative clauses in languages of the Americas: A typological overview, 3–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy & Masayoshi Shibatani
2009Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan
1976Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1989From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(2). 287–310Google Scholar
2004On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 341–367.
Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog
(eds.) 2012The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum
(eds.) 2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Huettner, Alison, Marie Vaughan & David D. McDonald
1987Constraints on the generation of adjunct clauses. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics , 207–214.
Knoch, Ute
2009Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1988Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M.
2002Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view. In Joan Bybee & Michael Noonan (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 235–319. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo
2003Diachronic English linguistics: An introduction. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Morris, Jane & Grahame Hirst
1991Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Computational Linguistics 17(1). 21–48.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Sandra Thompson
2008The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.E.
2011Understanding English grammar: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam
1988Australian corpus of English. Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
(eds.) 1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
(ed.) 1991Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite
2004 Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1995The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics 12 , Manchester.
Van Valin Jr., Robert
2005Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Eugene
1977A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some predicative lexical items in written discourse. International Science 6. 1–92.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Asp, Elissa
2019. In praise of text analysis. Functions of Language 26:1  pp. 35 ff. Crossref logo
Green, Clarence
2017.  In Patterns and Development in the English Clause System,  pp. 149 ff. Crossref logo
Ortega, Lourdes
2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29  pp. 82 ff. Crossref logo
Taboada, Maite
2019. The space of coherence relations and their signalling in discourse. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 1:2  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo
Trnavac, Radoslava & Maite Taboada
2016. Cataphora, backgrounding and accessibility in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 93  pp. 68 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 january 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.