References (86)
Aarts, Bas
2004Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1): 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordachioaia, Gianina, Cano, Mariangeles, Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian
2013The realization of external arguments in nominalizations. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 16: 73–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2001Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 42]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, Jenny
2019Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12(3): 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo
2013The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas
2014Boundary permeability: A parameter for linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology 18(3): 489–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper
2012Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen
2007Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Thompson, Sandra
1997Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 378–388. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacoullos, Renata T. & Walker, James
2009The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2): 321–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1: 1–28.Google Scholar
2009Can we factor out free choice? In Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar, Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds), 183–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003Subordination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, D’Hoedt, Frauke, Fonteyn, Lauren & Van Goethem, Kristel
2018The changing functions of competing forms: attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2): 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2008Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12: 55–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48: 1153–1193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat
1991A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2006The Grammar of the English tense System: A Comprehensive Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2002Nominalization and argument structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 27: 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali
2017The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 403–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Hilpert, Martin
2016Frequency effects in grammar. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2015Usage-based construction grammar. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Eva Dabrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. & Hengeveld, Kees
1991The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics 29: 231–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2006Complementation: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick
2002Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. SSLA 24: 297–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Eye, Alexander
1990Introduction to Configural Frequency Analysis: The Search for Types and Antitypes in Cross-classifications. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985Mental Spaces. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary C.
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1992Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change, Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds), 17–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Hartmann, Stefan
2016Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1): 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & Heyvaert, Liesbet
2018Category change in the English gerund: Tangled (web or fine-tuned constructional network? In Category Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language 20], Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds), 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren & van de Pol, Nikki
2016Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English -ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 185–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Heyvaert, Liesbet & Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2015How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4): 583–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren
2019Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1972Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 83–98. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2019Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A case study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change 30(3): 385–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2003Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan
2004HCFA 3.2. A program for R.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1998Mixed nominalizations, short verb movement and object shift in English. In Proceedings of Nels 28, Kiyomi Kusomoto & Pius N. Tamanji (eds), 143–157. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan
2014Constructing a schema: Word-class changing morphology in a usage-based perspective. GCLA 2: 235–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason
2017Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet, Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Buyle, Anouk
2019Nominal and verbal gerunds in Present-day English: Aspectual features and nominal status. Language Sciences 73: 32–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet
2008On the constructional semantics of gerundive nominalizations. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 9–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2009The German mit-predicative construction. Constructions and Frames 1(1): 29–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2007Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard
2007Language Networks. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jack, George
1988The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12: 15–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
1993Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1989The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1: 85–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1992Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge history of the English Language, Vol. 2: 1066–1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 23–155. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B.
1960The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington IN: IURC.Google Scholar
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2018Present-day English gerunds: A multi-layered referential model. Folia Linguistica 52(1): 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019The English gerund revisited: Exploring semantic differences through collocational analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(1): 205–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020The Present-day English Gerund System. A Cognitive-Constructionist Account. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel & Morris, Caroline
2018Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In Category Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language 20], Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds), 47–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Experimental and Corpus-Based Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language, 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfänder, Stefan & Behrens, Heike
2016Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter
2003Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 205–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette
2014English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 215–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul
1976Parts of speech systems. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 3–61. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Smirnova, Elena
2020Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 27]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Zehentner, Eva
2019A convent of sisters without a mother superior? Discussing abstract nodes in the constructional network. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC15), Nishinomiya, Japan.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali & Todd, Simon
2017Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji
1985The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2015Multiple inheritance and constructional change. In On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change [Benjamins Current Topics 79], Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière, Freek Van de Velde (eds), 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2014Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In The Extending Scope of Construction Grammar, Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds), 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno
1968Adjectives and Nominalizations [Papers on Formal Linguistics 5]. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe
2003The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of -ing complements in Modern English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 305–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva & Traugott, Elizabeth C.

Corpora

Davies, Mark
2004BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus (1980s–1993). [URL]
2008-Corpus of Contemporary American English (Davies 2008–). [URL]
Cited by (2)

Cited by 2 other publications

Gillmann, Melitta
2024. Allostructions and stancetaking: a corpus study of the German discourse management constructions Wo/wenn wir gerade/schon dabei sind . Cognitive Linguistics 35:1  pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Isabelle Delaere
2023. Functional hybridity in translation. Languages in Contrast 23:2  pp. 252 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.