Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 21:1 (2021) ► pp.112137
References (18)
References
Baayen, R. H. and Lieber, R. 1991. Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study. Linguistics 29(5): 801–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1993. On Frequency, Transparency and Productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds), 181–208. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. In Corpus Linguistics, A. Lüdeling, M. Kytö and M. Kytö (eds), 899–919. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baroni, M. and Evert, S. 2014. The ZipfR Package for Lexical Statistics: A Tutorial Introduction. Available at [URL] [last accessed 1 June 2019].
Craig, C. G. 1991. Ways to Go in Rama: A Case Study in Polygrammaticalization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume II. Types of grammatical markers, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 455–492. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G. 2005. Rood, Groen, Corpus! Een Taalgebruiksgebaseerde Analyse van Woordvolgordevariatie in Tweeledige Werkwoordelijke Eindgroepen. PhD Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1987. Copula Auxiliarization: How and Why? In Historical Development of Auxiliaries, M. Harris and P. Ramat (eds), 53–84. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L. and Ricca, D. 2006. Productivity in Italian Word Formation: A Variable-Corpus Approach. Linguistics 44(1): 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guehria, W. 2011. La Structure Attributive avec devenir comme Construction Marquée dans l’Ensemble Sous-Déterminé des Phrases de Forme NVétat Adj . Langue Française 171(3): 135–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, B. 2000. Auxiliarisation et Copularisation. Revue de Linguistique Romane 641: 427–443.Google Scholar
Raineri, S. 2010. Analyse Contrastive Français-Anglais du Passif dans une Perspective Constructionnelle : Sens et Fonction de BE Ven, ETRE Vé, GET Ven et SE FAIRE Ver . PhD Thesis, Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle – Paris III.Google Scholar
Sansò, A. and Ramat, A. G. 2015. Deictic Motion Verbs as Passive Auxiliaries: The Case of Italian andare ‘go’ and venire ‘come’. Transactions of the Philological Society 114(1): 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sleeman, P. 2014. From Participle to Adjective in Germanic and Romance. In Adjectives in Germanic and Romance, P. Sleeman, F. Van de Velde and H. Perridon (eds), 171–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H. 2009. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A. 2012. Productivity in Argument Selection from Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Cacioli, Caterina & Paola Vernillo
2023. How did you break that?. Languages in Contrast 23:1  pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
HOFF, MARK
2023. The Role of Frequency in Morphosyntactic Variation. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics,  pp. 197 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.