Article published in:
Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change
Edited by Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Mengden
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69] 2014
► pp. 203242
Sources:

Sources:

ADL = Arkiv for dansk litteratur [Archive of Danish Literature] www​.adl​.dk
DDO = Den Danske Ordbog 1-6 [The Danish Dictionary]. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Copenhagen: Gyldendal 2000-2006.Google Scholar
GL = Gammeldansk læsebog Eds. Nelly Uldaler & Gerd Wellejus. København 1968.
Legend of St. Christina. Text from GL
ODS = Ordbog over det danske Sprog 1-28. [Dictionary of the Danish Language 1918–1955.
References
Andersen, H.
(1973) Abductive and deductive change. Language 49, 4, 765–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1980) Morphological change: towards a typology. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Morphology (pp. 1–50). The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001a) Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic change in progress (pp. 21–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2001b) Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic change in progress (pp. 225–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2006a) Synchrony, Diachrony, and Evolution. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing Models of Linguistic Change. Evolution and beyond (pp. 59–90). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation. Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica XXIII, 2, 231–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Th. Eythórsson (Ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers (pp. 11–44). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. & Harder, P.
(2007) Complement-taking predicates: usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31.3, 569–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins. R. & Pagliuca, W.
(1994)  The Evolution of Grammar . Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L.
(2010)  Language, usage, and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2011) Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59, 387–410. 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, 183–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001)  Radical Construction Grammar . Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J.T., Lie, S. & Vannebo, K.I.
(1997)  Norsk Referansegrammatikk . Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C.
(1975)  Transformative, intransitive und kursive Verben . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O.
(Eds) (2004)  Construction Grammar in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.) (pp. 11–86).
Goldberg, A.
(1995)  A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1998) Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.) (pp. 203–220).
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R. & Alho, I.
(2004)  Iso Suomen Kielioppi . Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hansen, E. & Heltoft, L.
(2011)  Grammatik over det Danske Sprog 1-3. [Grammar of the Danish Language]. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press.Google Scholar
Harder, P.
(1996a)  Functional semantics: a theory of meaning, structure and tense in English . Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1996b) Linguistic structure in a functional grammar. In E. Engberg-Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L. Falster Jakobsen (Eds.), Content, Expression, and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (pp. 423–452). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2002)  Understanding Morphology . London: Arnold.Google Scholar
(2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, L.
(1996) Paradigms, Word Order and Grammaticalization. In E. Engberg-Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L. Falster Jakobsen (Eds.), Content, Expression, and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (pp. 469–494). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Paradigmatic structure in a usage-based theory of grammaticalisation. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 145–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heltoft, L., Nørgård-Sørensen, J. & Schøsler, L.
(2005) Grammatikalisering og struktur. In L. Heltoft, J. Nørgård-Sørensen & L. Schøsler (Eds.), Grammatikalisering og struktur (pp. 9–30). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L.
(1935–37) La catégorie des cas 1-2 . Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
(1943)  Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse . Københavns Universitets Festskrift november 1943. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
(19592 [1939])Notes sur les oppositions supprimables. In Essais linguistiques. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague , vol. XII, 84–88.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J.
(1998) Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.) (pp. 155–176).
Høysgaard, J.P.
(1752)  Methodisk Forsøg til en fuldstændig dansk Syntax [Methodical Essay at a Complete Danish Grammar] Copenhagen. (=H. Bertelsen (Ed.), Danske Grammatikere V. Det danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab [1919–1920]).Google Scholar
Kay, P.
(2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In M. Fried & H.C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (Constructional Approaches to Language 4) (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, S.
(2005) Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9, 269–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, K.
(1911)  Dansk Ordföjningslære . Copenhagen: Lehmann og Stages Forlag.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L.
(2011)  Connecting Grammaticalisation . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Romppanen, B.. et al. (
1997)  Suuri Suomi-Ruotsi-Sanakirja 1-2 . Porvoo-Helsinki-Juva: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.Google Scholar
SAG = Teleman, U.. et al.
Taylor, J.R.
(1989)  Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
1998Syntactic Constructions as Prototype Categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.) (pp. 177–202).
Teleman, U. Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E.
(1999)  Svenska Akademiens Grammatik 1-4. Stockholm: Nordstedts.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(1977) Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change (pp. 141–180). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(Ed) (1998)  The New Psychology of Language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure . Mahwah N.J. and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1988)  The Semantics of Grammar . Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten & Lene Schøsler
2014.  In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69],  pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens
2014.  In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69],  pp. 243 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 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.