Chapter published in:
New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban and José Vicente Lozano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 202] 2018
► pp. 75104
References

References

Auer, Peter & Murray, Robert W.
2015Hermann Paul’s ‘Principles of Language History’ Revisited. Translations and Reflections. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bao, Zhiming
2010 Must in Singapore English. Lingua 120: 1727–1737.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2008Productivity. Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic [Constructional Approaches to Language 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike
(eds) 2015Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Gildea, Spike
2015Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 1–50.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriëlle
(eds) 2008Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David J., French, Robert M. & Hofstadter, Douglas R.
1992High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 4: 185–211. http://​consc​.net​/papers​/highlevel​.pdfCrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2009Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth . In Traugott & Trousdale (eds), 75–104.Google Scholar
2012The course of actualization. Language 88: 601–633.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28: 83–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Fischer, Olga 2017The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone Pfenninger (eds), 240–268. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Ghesquière, Lobke & Van de Velde, Freek
(eds) 2015On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change [Benjamins Current Topics 79]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, Terence W.
1997The Symbolic Species. The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Edwin, E. A.
1973Analogy and Association in Linguistics and Psychology. Athens GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Entwisle, Doris R., Forsyth, Daniel F. & Muuss, Rolf
1964The syntactic-paradigmatic shift in children’s word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 3: 19–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ervin, Susan M.
1961Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word-association. The American Journal of Psychology 74: 361–372.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1997The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English compared with German and Dutch. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jaček Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel (eds), 265–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 149–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Approaches to Morphosyntactic Change from a Functional and Formal Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 31–42. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2015The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again. In Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English, Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey (eds), 120–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik & Van der Wurff, Wim
2017A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Olbertz, Hella
. In press. The role played by analogy in processes of language change: The case of English HAVE-to compared to Spanish TENER-que. In Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax [Studies in English Language Series], Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Willem B. Hollmann, Emma Moore & Linda Van Bergen eds Cambridge: CUP.
Fried, Mirjam
2013Principles of constructional change. In Hoffmann & Trousdale (eds), 419–437.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre
2003Why we’re so smart. In Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds), 195–235. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2010Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34: 752–775.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Anggoro, Florencia K. & Klibanoff, Raquel S. 2011Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development 82: 1173–1188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Holyoak, Keith J. & Kokinov, Boicho K.
(eds) 2001The Analogical Mind. Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Namy, Laura L.
2006Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15: 297–301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Smith, Linsey
2012Analogical reasoning. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd edn, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (ed.), 130–136. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adèle E.
2013Constructionist approaches. In Hoffman & Trousdale (eds), 15–31.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Naomi, McGregor, Karla K.
& Graham, Anne 2007Conceptual organization at 6 and 8 years of age: Evidence from the semantic priming of object decisions. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 50: 161–176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1989From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2013Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Hoffman & Trousdale (eds), 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme
(eds) 2013The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas
1995Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
2001Epilogue. Analogy as the core of cognition. In Gentner, Holyoak & Kokinov (eds), 499–538.Google Scholar
2013The nature of categories and concepts. Lecture delivered at Stanford, March 6, 2013. Made available on Youtube, March 2014.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas & Sander, Emmanuel
2013Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kalénine, Solène, Peyrin, Carole, Pichat, Cédric, Segebarth, Christoph, Bonthoux, Françoise & Baciu, Monica
2009The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioural and fMRI study. NeuroImage 44: 1152–1162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2011On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–897.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Heine, Bernd
2014Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains. In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds), 348–363. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel
2011Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane/Penguin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1974Remarks on analogical change. In Historical Linguistics, Vol. I., John M. Anderson & Charles Jones (eds), 257–275. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W.
1979Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov
1993Etymology. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk 2016For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30: 39–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar and the development of non-deontic be bound to . Lingua 199: 72–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1909 [1880]Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 4th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann
2002The Neuroscience of Language. On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Order. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren
2000Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte
2015The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 107–138.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc
2011Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar. In Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 11], Luc Steels (ed.), 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Fluid Construction Grammar. In Hoffman & Trousdale (eds), 153–167.Google Scholar
Strong, Herbert Augustus
1889Principles of the History of Language. New York NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2008aGrammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language. Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Variation, Selection, Development. Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jager & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008bThe grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs & Diewald (eds), 23–45.Google Scholar
2008c“All that he endeavoured to prove was” …: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, Robin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds), 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
2015Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 51–80.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
(eds) 2010Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2012Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Grammaticalization and Language Change. New Reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], Kirstin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Construction grammar. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics, Merja Kytö & Pavi Pahta (eds), 65–78. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel & Borjärs, Kersti
2010Grammaticalization and models of language. In Traugott & Trousdale (eds), 279–299.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas
2016Georg von der Gabelenz and ‘das lautsymbolische gefühl’. A chapter in the history of iconicity research. In From Variation to Iconicity. Festschrift for Olga Fischer, Anne Bannink & Wim Honselaar (eds), 439–452. Amsterdam: Pegasus.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], Crossref logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2020. Reinforcement by realignment in diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames 12:2  pp. 206 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 02 december 2020. 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.