Review published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 25:1 (2020) ► pp.116123
References (22)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Vol. 21, pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (Eds.) (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.) (2008). Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (Eds). (2014). Reflections on constructions across grammars [Special issue]. Constructions and Frames, 6(2). DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 1991, 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Mantlik, A. 2015. Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profile. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar