Part of
Pseudo-Coordination and Multiple Agreement Constructions
Edited by Giuliana Giusti, Vincenzo Nicolò Di Caro and Daniel Ross
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 274] 2022
► pp. 213230
References
Andersson, Peter & Blensenius, Kristian
Behrens, Bergljot, Flecken, Monique, & Carroll, Mary
2013Progressive Attraction: On the Use and Grammaticalization of Progressive Aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 25(2), 95–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. & Vikner, Sten
2017Having the edge: A new perspective on pseudo-coordination in Danish and Afrikaans. In Nicholas LaCara, Keir Moulton, & Anne-Michelle Tessier (Eds.), A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson (pp. 77–90). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Blensenius, Kristian
2015Progressive Constructions in Swedish. Diss. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Borin, Lars, Forsberg, Markus, & Roxendal, Johan
2012Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 474–478). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Breed, Adri
2017The subjective use of postural verb in Afrikaans. Evolution from progressive to modal. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 52(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Usage-based theory and exemplar representations for constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1966 “Tomo y me voy”. Ein Problem vergleichender europäischer Syntax. Vox Romanica, 25, 13–55.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H.
2000Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Östen Dahl (Ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe (pp. 605–653). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena
1993Verbet ta i metaforisk och grammatikaliserad användning. Språk och stil, 3, 105–139.Google Scholar
Fraser, Katherine
2018Polysemous posture in English: a case study of non-literal meaning. In Alexandra Anna Spalek & Matthew Gotham (Eds.), Approaches to Coercion and Polysemy, Oslo Studies in Language, 10(2), 9–28.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henriksson, Henrik
2006Aspektualität ohne Aspekt? Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Hesse, Andrea
2009Zur Grammatikalisierung der Pseudokoordination im Norwegischen und in den anderen skandinavischen Sprachen. Tübingen & Basel: A. Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Christian Koops
Holm, Gösta
1958Syntaxgeografiska studier över två nordiska verb. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för nordiska språk.Google Scholar
Hultman, Tor G.
2003Svenska Akademiens språklära. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien.Google Scholar
Johansson, Bengt
1987Att uttrycka progressiv aspekt. Diverse: Vänskrift till Bertel Fortelius 3.8.1987 (pp. 37–49). Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög
2014Pseudocoordination in Swedish with ‘go’ and the “surprise effect”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 93, 26–50.Google Scholar
Kinn, Torodd
2018Pseudocoordination in Norwegian. Degrees of grammaticalization and constructional variants. In Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 75–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinn, Torodd, Blensenius, K., & Andersson, P.
2018Posture, location, and activity in Mainland Scandinavian pseudocoordinations. CogniTextes, 18 (Online: [URL]) DOI logo
Kvist Darnell, Ulrika
2008Pseudosamordningar i svenska. Särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. Diss. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Lemmens, Maarten
2005Aspectual posture verb constructions. Dutch Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(3), 183–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, Helge
2019Pseudocoordination with posture verbs in Mainland Scandinavian: A grammaticalized progressive construction? Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 42, 87–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2004Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John
2002A cross-linguistic overview of the posture verbs ‘sit’, ‘stand’, and ‘lie’. In John Newman (Ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norén, Kerstin & Linell, Per
Ross, Daniel
2016Going to surprise: the grammaticalization of itive as mirative. In Jacek Woźny (Ed.), Online Proceedings of Cognitive Linguistics Wrocław Web Conference 2016. (Online: [URL])
SAG = Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan & Andersson, Erik
1999Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Vol. 1–4. Stockholm: Norstedts ordbok.Google Scholar
SAOB
= Ordbok över svenska språket utgiven av Svenska Akademien. Lund 1897– (In addition to the online version: saob.se.)Google Scholar
Tonne, Ingebjørg
2001Progressives in Norwegian and the Theory of Aspectuality. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
2003Ta og ro deg ned noen hakk: on pseudocoordination with the verb ta ‘take’ in a grammaticalization perspective. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 26, 165–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena
2009The Syntax of Surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 84, 181–224.Google Scholar