Review published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 25:1 (2020) ► pp. 116123
References

References

Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L.
(Ed.) (2001) Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment [Special issue]. Language Sciences, 23(2–3).Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E.
(2012) Paradigmatic integration. In K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, & T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2005) Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(Eds) (2014) Reflections on constructions across grammars [Special issue]. Constructions and Frames, 6(2). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization – A Look from its Fringes and its Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D., & Janda, R. D.
(2003) On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 3–180). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1995/2015) Thoughts on Grammaticalization (3rd rev. ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press. (Original work published 1982)Google Scholar
Noël, D.
(2017) The development of non-deontic BE BOUND TO in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua, 199, 72–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M.
(2009) Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 123 ]
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., & Heltoft, L.
(2015) Grammaticalisation as paradigmatisation. In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New Directions in Grammaticalization Research (pp. 261–292). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Petré, P., & Van de Velde, F.
(2018) The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Mantlik, A.
2015Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profile. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar