Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 22:4 (2017) ► pp. 490520
References

References

Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G.
(2014) Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H.
(1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bullinaria, J., & Levy, J.
(2007) Extracting semantic representations from word cooccurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Thompson, S.
(1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2012) Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2009) Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, T. K.
(2006) The origins and development of Germanic V2: Evidence from alliterative verse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dinu, G., Pham, N. T., & Baroni, M.
(2013) DISSECT: DIStributional SEmantics Composition Toolkit. In Proceedings of the System Demonstrations of ACL 2013 (51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics) (pp. 31–36). East Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Erk, K.
(2012) Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000) Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S., & Hilpert, M.
(2008) The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) From interdental to alveolar in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 293–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1). 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stoll, S.
(2009) Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(3), 217–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2006) Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012b) Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 233–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D.
(1996) History, Language Change and Language Relationship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D. J.
(2008) Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), 347–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D.
(1998) Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A.
(2008) Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D.
(2012) Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A.
(1995) Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 660–665). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Noël, D.
(2008) The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D., & Colleman, T. (2010)  Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 157–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Onysko, A., & Calude, A.
(2014) Comparing the usage of Maori loans in spoken and written New Zealand English: A case study of Maori, Pakeha, and Kiwi . In E. Zenner & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations (pp. 143–169). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2016a) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Ahead-of-print. Retrieved from Crossref (last accessed August 2017). Crossref
Rosemeyer, M.
(2014) Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turney, P., & Pantel, P.
(2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37(1), 141–188.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A.
(2012) Productivity in Argument Selection. From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 318 ff. Crossref logo
Davidse, Kristin & Hendrik De Smet
2020.  In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics,  pp. 211 ff. Crossref logo
Hundt, Marianne
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218],  pp. 199 ff. Crossref logo
Percillier, Michael
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27],  pp. 214 ff. Crossref logo
Shen, Tian & R. Harald Baayen
2021. Adjective–noun compounds in Mandarin: a study on productivity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo
Sundquist, John D.
2020. Productivity, richness, and diversity of light verb constructions in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:3  pp. 349 ff. Crossref logo
Wagner, Susanne
2019. Why very good in India might be pretty good in North America. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:4  pp. 445 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 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.