References (42)
References
Andersen, Henning. 1989. Understanding linguistic innovations. In Leiv E. Breivik & Ernst. H. Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 5–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2021. Individuality in language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social networks and historical sociolinguistics. Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010. Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: a Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics 14(2). 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Because science! Notes on a variable conjunction. In Elena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez (eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 43–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Kompa. 2020. Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics 13.11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Language change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In Lauren Squires (ed.), English in computer-mediated communication: Variation, representation, and change, 149–178. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Aspects of language. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Minoji Akimoto (eds.). 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börgerding, Pia, Marie-Christine Benen & Alexander Bergs. 2020. Expecting the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in narratives. Anglistik 31(1). 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1994. On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal 181. 5–27.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & David Casenhiser. 2005. Fast mapping of phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6). 500–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan & Tobias Ungerer. 2023. Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2024. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60(3). 599–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1). 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022a. Construction Grammar. The structure of English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022b. Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10(1). 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and Poetics. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kanetani, Masaru. 2015. On the new usage of because . Studies in Language and Literature [Language] 681. 63–80.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1995. On language change. The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Konvička, Martin & Kristin Stöcker. 2022. (Non-)ellipses in Dutch, English, and German. The case of because X. Nederlandse Taalkunde 273(3). 333–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. Two ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Franziska Günther. 2016. Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology/Psychology of Language 71. 1110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Kevin. 2010. Buffy (and SNL) ‘much’ much?: Slang research with Hulu.com, Part 2. Language and humor, June 8, 2010. Online: [URL]
Swift, Jonathan. 1726. Gulliver’s travels. London: Benjamin Motte.Google Scholar
Theocharous, S. P., Evangelos Theocharous & John H. Lehman. 2012. The evaluation of the performance of two pyroelectric detectors with vertically aligned multi-walled carbon nanotube coatings. Infrared Physics & Technology 55(4). 299–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Construction grammar for kids. Constructions SV1–11.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 361. 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier. 1999. A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today 20(3). 397–418.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann. 2020. Delineating extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 341. 345–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar