Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 21:3 (2014) ► pp.297332
References (51)
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert. 2008. Aspect and aspectuality. In Bas Arts & April MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 244–269. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2000. The structure of modern English: A linguistic introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. The syntax and semantics of Binding Theory. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 101. 437–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Thomas. 2011. Cohesion: A discourse perspective. Berlin: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cloran, Carmel. 2010. Rhetorical unit analysis and Bakhtin’s chronotype. Functions of Language 17(1). 29–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2001. Grammaticalization and the life cycles of constructions. RASK Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation 141. 91–134.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 121. 55–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. English -ing clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48(6). 1153–1193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3). 449–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Disterheft, Dorothy. 1981. Remarks on the history of the Indo-European infinitive. Folia Linguistica Historica 2(1). 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 2005. A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke. 2006. English grammar: A university course. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Argument 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick. 2006. The English gerund-participle: A comparison with infinitives. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Wim van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 109–199. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Grammar 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. The adaptive approach to grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 27–51.
. 2012b. Toward 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy & Masayoshi Shibatani. 2009. Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(2). 287–310Google Scholar
. 2004. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), 341–367.
Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog (eds.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huettner, Alison, Marie Vaughan & David D. McDonald. 1987. Constraints on the generation of adjunct clauses. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics , 207–214.
Knoch, Ute. 2009. Diagnostic writing assessment: The development and validation of a rating scale. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2002. Combining 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2003. Diachronic English linguistics: An introduction. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Morris, Jane & Grahame Hirst. 1991. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Computational Linguistics 17(1). 21–48.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Sandra Thompson. 2008. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, T.E. 2011. Understanding English grammar: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 1988. Australian corpus of English. Sydney: Macquarie University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.). 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John (ed.). 1991. Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. The 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. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, Eugene. 1977. A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some predicative lexical items in written discourse. International Science 61. 1–92.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Asp, Elissa
2019. In praise of text analysis. Functions of Language 26:1  pp. 35 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Green, Clarence
2017. Discourse Coherence and Clause Combination. In Patterns and Development in the English Clause System,  pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Trnavac, Radoslava & Maite Taboada
2016. Cataphora, backgrounding and accessibility in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 93  pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Ortega, Lourdes
2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 29  pp. 82 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2024. 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.