Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:4 (2023) ► pp.743–788

From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar

A natural evolution of the paradigm

ORCID logo | University of Oregon
ORCID logo | Ghent University

The term grammaticalization originally denoted a particular outcome of language change (lexis > morphology), then got expanded to practically all studies involving language change, the processes that create such changes, and a theory modeling these. These expansions have been challenged in the literature as conceptually flawed. A usage-based analysis of the evolution of the concept culminates in the use of the term grammaticalization as a “flag” of a particular approach to linguistics. However, the theoretical premises of grammaticalization studies are entirely compatible with the premises of Diachronic Construction Grammar (DCxG). All studies within the “expanded” concept of grammaticalization can be explicitly modeled within DCxG, which provides formalism of sufficient detail to map the gradual nature of language change in cases of grammaticalization and beyond. Consequently, the most vigorous attacks on grammaticalization lose power when grammaticalization is seen as part of a larger, more complete theory of language and language change.

Keywords: evolution of the concept of grammaticalization, diachronic construction grammar, gradual nature of language change, theory of science, history of linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammaticalization: A usage-based analysis
  • 3.Brief introduction to Diachronic Construction Grammar
    • 3.1Construction Grammar
    • 3.2Diachronic Construction Grammar
  • 4.Constructions: The locus of all grammaticalization
  • 5.Constructions beyond the margins of grammaticalization
  • 6.Conclusions: The benefits of a constructional framework
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20079.gil
References
Abbott, Miriam
1991 Macushi. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 31, 23–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
(ed.) 2001 Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
2015 Morphological change. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 264–285. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2006 Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014 Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 343–373. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman
2013 The story of ‘woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Shobhana L. Chelliah
(eds) 2009 The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
2012a “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2020 How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 197–238. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea
2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Luján
(eds) 2020 Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea
(eds) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman
2013 The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 28–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara. McGillwray
2012 Reconstructing constructional Semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin & Nancy Chang
2013 Embodied Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
(eds) 2008 Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter
2010 Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 245–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer
2004 (eds.). What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas
1999 Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change. In Andreas Blank & Peter Koch (eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 61–90. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag
(eds) 2012 Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins
1992 Patterns of language: Structure, variation, change. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian. D. Joseph & Richard. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2013 Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman
1999 The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4). 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
1997 Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 231. 378–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 821. 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
(ed.) 2001 Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. [Special Issue]. Language Sciences 23(2–3).Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Richard Janda
2001 Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their Problems. Language Sciences 23(2–3). 93–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson
(eds) 2018 Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Verbs: Aspect and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal
2017 Between the historical languages and the reconstructed Language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 1221. 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don
2014 Complex coordination in diachrony: Two Sogeram case studies. Diachronica 31(3). 379–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language 41(3). 577–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 Grammatical reconstruction: The Sogeram languages of New Guinea. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott
2004 Grammaticalization: from syntax to morphology. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehman, Joachim Mugdan & Stavos Skopetas (eds.). Morphologie / Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 1590–1599. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammaticalization and syntax: A functional view. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 365–377. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2012 The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde
(eds.) 2015 On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2009 Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 371. 445–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Review of Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 1371. 108–121.Google Scholar
2020 Paradigms lost – Paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 278–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Tonya Kim Dewey, Carlee Arnett, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
2017 Dative sickness: A phylogenetic analysis of argument structure evolution in Germanic. Language 93(1). e1–e22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2007 Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolae (ed.), Finiteness, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Honre Watanabe
(eds) 2016 Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal
2016 Syntactic reconstruction in Indo-European: The state of the art. In Joaquín Gorrochategui, Carlos García Castillero & José. M. Vallejo (eds.), Franz Bopp and his Comparative Grammar Model (1816–2016), [special monographic volume] Veleia 331. 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje
2001 Introduction. In Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
2013 Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 111–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 641. 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne
2020 Constructionalization and the Sorites paradox: The emergence of the into-causative. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 46–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009 Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Principles of constructional change. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015 Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frotscher, Michael, Guus Kroonen & Jóhanna Barðdal
2022 Indo-European inroads into the syntactic–etymological interface: A reconstruction of the PIE verbal root *menkʷ ‘to be short; to lack’ and its argument structure. Historische Sprachforschung 1331(2020) 62–96.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike
1993a The rigid postverbal subject in Panare: A historical explanation. International Journal of American Linguistics 591. 44–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993b The development of tense markers from demonstrative pronouns in Panare (Cariban). Studies in Language 171. 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 On Reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 65–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Are there universal cognitive motivations for ergativity? In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), L’ergativité en Amazonie, Vol. 21, 1–37. Brasília: CNRS, IRD and the Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, UnB.Google Scholar
2008 Explaining similarities between main clauses and nominalized clauses. In Ana Carla Bruno, Frantomé Pacheco, Francesc Queixalos & Leo Wetzels (eds.), La structure des langues amazoniennes [Special Issue], Amérindia 321. 57–75.Google Scholar
2011 Diachronic pathways that create stance constructions in selected South American languages. Paper presented at the workshop Stance Marking Across Languages: Typological, Diachronic & Discourse Perspectives , Hong Kong, 18–20 July.
2012 Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. In Lyle Campbell & Veronica Grondona (eds.), Handbook of South American Languages, 441–494. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Reconstructing the copulas and nonverbal predicate constructions in Cariban. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Flávia de Castro Alves
2020 Reconstructing the source of nominative-absolutive alignment in two Amazonian language families. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Luján, Reconstructing Syntax, 47–107. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Katharina Haude
2011 The origins of the Movima hierarchical alignment: Internal reconstruction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics , Osaka, July 25–29.
Gildea, Spike & Joana Jansen
2018 The development of referential hierarchy effects in Sahaptian. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 131–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike, Eugenio Luján, & Jóhanna Barðdal
2020 The curious case of reconstructing syntax. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Luján & Spike Gildea (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 1–44. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Géraldine Walther
2015 Information load determines optionality in Cariban. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1–3 August.
Gisborne, Nikolas & Amanda Patten
2011 Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1971 Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 71. 394–415.Google Scholar
1979 On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019 Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine & Spike Gildea
(eds.) 2018 The evolution of argument coding patterns in South American languages. [Special Issue]. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8(1).Google Scholar
Guirardello, Raquel & Spike Gildea
2011 Construction Grammar and syntactic reconstruction: Internal Reconstruction of main clause grammar in Trumai (Isolate). Paper presented at the workshop “Diachronic Construction Grammar”, 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Universidad de la Rioja, Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September.
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1994 Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 255–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 On degrammaticalization. In Barry Blake & Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th international conference on historical linguistics, 163–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemayer
1991 Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars
2011 Word order change as grammaticalisation. In Jens Nørgård-Sørensen, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Connecting grammaticalisation, 171–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2008 Where did this future construction come from? A case study of Swedish komma att V. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 107–131. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes, 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael
1996 The way constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Brian D. Joseph
2003 On language, change, and language change – Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Cynthia A., Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov, Esther Le Mair & Jóhanna Barðdal
2019 Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change: How to succeed in Indo-European without really trying. Diachronica 36(4). 463–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian
2004 Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammaticalization: A general critique. In Heike Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 193–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2021 Some observations on what grammaticalization is and is not. Cadernos De Linguística 2(1), e343. ( DOI logo)Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
2012 Grammaticalization as optimization. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcome, 15–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koehn, Edward & Sally Sharp Koehn
1986 Apalai. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 11, 33–127. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1965 The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 511. 55–71. (Reprinted in: Esquisses linguistiques II. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 38–541 1975) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991 Foundations of cognitive grammar II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1982/1995 Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Köln: Universität zu Köln. Republished in 1995 by Lincom, Münich.Google Scholar
2002 New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Camilla Wide
2005 Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2). 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A.
2013 Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer
2001 Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 841. 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1912 L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia. Revue internationale de synthese scientifique Vol. XII, no XXVI–6.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2014 The grammaticalization chain of case function: Extension and reanalysis of case-marking vs. universals of grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 69–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine
(eds.) 2011 The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2007 Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow
1994 Idioms. Language 701. 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1993 A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII1. 219–258.Google Scholar
Rostila, Jouni
2004 Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In Fred Karlsson (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Helsinki, January 7–9, 2004. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki. Available at: [URL] (last access 2 November 2022).
Sag, Ivan
2012 Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena
2015 Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova
(eds.) 2020 Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2013 Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc
(ed.) 2011 Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2012 Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2008 Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development – Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2015 Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine
(eds.) 1991 Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde
2013 Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 361. 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez-González, Juan G. & Jóhanna Barðdal
2019 Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic. Folia Linguistica Historica 40(2). 555–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Walter Bisang
2004 What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 3–20. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar