Chapter published in:
Reorganising Grammatical Variation: Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants
Edited by Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann and Mirjam Schmuck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 203] 2018
► pp. 231268
References

Corpora

German Reference Corpus ( Deutsches Referenzkorpus DeReKo)
Heliand and Genesis = Taeger, Burkhard 1996Der Heliand. Studienausgabe in Auswahl. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Isidor = Eggers, Hans (ed.) 1964Der althochdeutsche Isidor. Nach der Pariser Handschrift und den Monseer Fragmenten [Altdeutsche Textbibliothek Tübingen ATB]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Otfrid = Haubrichs, Wolfgang, Heuser, Rita & Kleiber, Wolfgang (eds) 2004–2010Otfrid. Evangelienbuch, 2 Vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Tatian = Masser, Achim (ed.) 1994Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56 [Studien zum Althochdeutschen 25]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

References

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Tomasello, Michael
2006Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23: 275–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
2012Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data do and do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 129–152. Boston, MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 49–69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie
2014Lexical expansion in the have and be perfect in Dutch. A constructional prototype account. Diachronica 31(2): 159–191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A.
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dentler, Sigrid
1997Zur Perfekterneuerung im Mittelhochdeutschen. Die Erweiterung des zeitreferentiellen Funktionsbereichs von Perfektfügungen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Eggers, Hans
1987Uuard quhoman und das System der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im althochdeutschen Isidor. In Althochdeutsch, Bd. 1: Grammatik, Glossen und Texte, Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach & Lothar Voetz (eds), 239–252. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner
1997Verbale Paarigkeit im Althochdeutschen und das “Tempussystem” im Isidor. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und Literatur 126: 1–31.Google Scholar
Gillmann, Melitta
2015Auxiliary selection in closely related languages. The case of German and Dutch. In Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Malte Rosemeyer & Rolf Kailuweit (eds), 333–358. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016Die Perfektkonstruktionen haben + V-PP und sein + V-PP aus gebrauchsbasierter Perspektive. Eine Korpusuntersuchung im Althochdeutschen, Altsächsischen und Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2): 93–127.Google Scholar
Grønvik, Ottar
1986Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des germanischen Sprachraumes. Oslo: Solo Forlag.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Diessel, Holger
2017Entrenchment in Construction Grammar. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 57–74. Boston MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael
1999Prototypisch starke und schwache Verben in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. In Variation und Stabilität in der Wortstruktur. Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Erwerb und Varietäten des Deutschen und anderer Sprachen, Matthias Butt & Nanna Fuhrhop (eds), 45–60. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Kotin, Michail L.
1999Die ‘Basisrelationen’ des Deutschen und die Auxiliarisierung von Haben, Sein und Werden. Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie (ZfdPh) 1999(3): 391–419.Google Scholar
2014Sein. Eine genealogisch-typologische Fallstudie über das Verbum substantivum. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (ZS) 39(1): 1–52.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
2000Building statives. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on Aspect (2000), Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 385–399. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Susumu
1997Zum System der Partizip-II-Konstruktion im Althochdeutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 22: 287–307.Google Scholar
1999Die historische Entwicklung der Perfektkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2009Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, Elena V. & Tomasello, Michael
2008Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds), 168–196. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj
1957Über den oberdeutschen Präteritumsschwund. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
1992Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthews, Danielle, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anna & Tomasello, Michael
2005The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development 20(1): 121–136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1971Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore & Terence Langendoen (eds), 96–113. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1981Notes on the English present perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81–90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika
1974Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 95: 5–96.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1902Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 161–210.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence
1990Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Randall, Janet, van Hout, Angeliek, Weissenborn, Jürgen & Baayen, Harald
2004Acquiring unaccusativity. A cross-linguistic look. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 332–353. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte
2014Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation [Studies in Language Companion Series 155]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapp, Christopher
2011Auxiliary selection in the Early New High German perfect tenses. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 53(2): 29–43.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2017A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations in memory and automatization. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 9–35. Boston MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas
1990The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In Historical Linguistics 1987. Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (8. ICHL): Lille, 31 August-4 September 1987 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 66] Henning Andersen & Konrad Koerner (eds), 461–488. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993To be or not to be in Dutch. A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. In The Low Countries and Beyond, Robert Kirsner (ed.), 85–96. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
1995Toward a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary variation. Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7(2): 129–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Aaron
2007Language use and auxiliary selection in the perfect. In Split Auxiliary Systems. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 69], Raúl Aranovich (ed.), 255–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2000Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4): 859–890.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface. Evidence from auxiliary selection. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Eleba Anagnostopoulou, Martin Everaert (eds), 243–268. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Gradience in split intransitivity. The end of the unaccusative hypothesis? Archivio Glottologico Italiano (AGI) 96(1): 67–86.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Change. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja
2010Tempus und ‘Mündlichkeit’ im Mittelhochdeutschen. Zur Interdependenz grammatischer Perspektivensetzung und ‘Historischer Mündlichkeit’ im mittelhochdeutschen Tempussystem. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar