Chapter published in:
Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions: Categories, co-text, and context
Edited by Pascal Hohaus and Rainer Schulze
[Studies in Language Companion Series 216] 2020
► pp. 1746
References

References

Bergs, Alexander
2008 Shall and shan’t in contemporary English: A case of functional condensation. In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds), 113–143. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
2004Modal use across register and time. In Studies in the History of the English Language 2, Anne Curzan & Kimberly Emmons (eds), 189–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2004You wanna consider a constructional approach to wanna-contraction? In Language, Culture, and Mind, Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 479–491. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny
2009Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In Contexts and Constructions [Constructional Approaches to Language 9], Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 213–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Budts, Sara & Petré, Peter
2020Putting connections centre stage in diachronic construction grammar. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 318–351. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert & Depraetere, Ilse
2016aShort-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 7–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016bResponse to Hilpert. Construction and Frames 8(1): 86–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
1983The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan
2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daugs, Robert
2017On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations, Turo Hiltunen, Joe McVeigh & Tanja Säily (eds). Helsinki: VARIENG. http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/series​/volumes​/19​/daugs/ (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
To appear. Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar, Martin Hilpert & Bert Cappelle (eds) Amsterdam John Benjamins
Davies, Mark
2007TIME Magazine Corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/time/ (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
2008The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words, 1990­-2017. https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/coca/ (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
2010The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. https://​www​.english​-corpora​.org​/coha/ (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Dekalo, Volodymyr & Hampe, Beate
2018Networks of meanings: Complementing collostructional analysis by cluster and network analyses. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 5(1): 151–184.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse & Reed, Susan
2011Towards a more explicit taxonomy of root possibility. English Language and Linguistics 15(1): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2011Review article of 'Language, usage and cognition' by Joan Bybee. Language 87(4): 830–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2009Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37: 445–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena
2012Paradigmatic integration: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], Kristen Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 111–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne
2017Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. R package version 0.1.0. https://​sfla​.ch​/collostructions/ (2 June 2020).
Goldberg, Adele
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Linguistics 7(5): 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2008Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42(169): 67–82.Google Scholar
2013Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
2016Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may . Constructions and Frames 8(1): 66–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan T.
2009Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4): 385–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1980Criteria for auxiliaries and modals. In Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Jan Svartvik, Randolph Quirk & Geoffrey Leech (eds), 65–78. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred
2000Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2003Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank R. Palmer (eds), 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory. In Advances in Corpus Linguistics, Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds), 61–81. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The modals ARE declining: Reply to Neil Millar’s ‘Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(4): 547–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, Juana I. Marín-Arerese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 95–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009Change in Contemporary English. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas
2009Change and constancy in linguistic change: How grammatical usage in written English evolved in the period 1931–1991. In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 173–200. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, Jaakko & Östman, Jan-Ola
2005Constructions and variability. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4], Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds), 191–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David
2013aContractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. Freiburg: Universitätsbibliothek Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
2013bFrom reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57], Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds), 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: to-contraction in American English. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 243–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2015Cross-variety diachronic drifts and ephemeral regional contrasts: An analysis of modality in the extended Brown family of corpora and what it can tell us about the New Englishes. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, Peter Collins (ed.), 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil
2009Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja
2014From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll . In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 77–89. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2017R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://​www​.R​-project​.org/ (2 June 2020).Google Scholar
Schmidtke, Karsten
2009 Going-to-V and gonna-V in child language: A quantitative approach to constructional development. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3): 509–538.Google Scholar
Seggewiß, Frederike
2012Current Changes in English Modals: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Present-Day Spoken English. PhD dissertation University of Freiburg.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Flach, Susanne
2016The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How we Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 101–127. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2008Grammaticalization, 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 Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2016Response to Wärnsby. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 54–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Plungian, Vladimir
1998Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wärnsby, Anna
2002Modal constructions? The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics 2.Google Scholar
2016On the adequacy of a constructionist approach to modality. Constructions and Frames 8(1): 40–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar