Part of
Different Slants on Grammaticalization
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Vittorio Tantucci
[Studies in Language Companion Series 232] 2023
► pp. 124146
Barth, Danielle
2019Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1): article nr. 20180055. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beijering, Karin
2010The grammaticalization of Mainland Scandinavian MAYBE. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies 1: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016Semi-insubordinate at-constructions in Norwegian: Formal, semantic and functional properties. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 34: 161–182.Google Scholar
BNC Consortium
2007The British National Corpus. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
2017Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.36. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bořil, Tomáš & Skarnitzl, Radek
2016Tools rPraat and mPraat. In Text, Speech, and Dialogue, Petr Sojka, Aleš Horák, Ivan Kopeček & Karel Pala (eds), 367–374. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
2012A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine
2014What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48(2): 469–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2005Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2003Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.) 145–167. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & 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
Caines, Andrew
2012You talking to me? Corpus and experimental data on the zero auxiliary interrogative in British English. In Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing, Stefan T. Gries & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 177–205. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Marie Herget, Kristensen, Line Burholt, Vinther, Nicoline Munck & Boye, Kasper
2021Grammar is background in sentence processing. Language and Cognition 13(1): 128–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter
2007Can/could and may/might in British, American and Australian English: A corpus-based account. World Englishes 26(4): 474–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2010The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2013Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE).   [URL] > (15 January 2021).
De Smet, Hendrik
2016How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28: 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Entrenchment effects in language change. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.) 75–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard
2002Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2002A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In Constructions, Special Vol. 1, Doris Schönefeld (ed.). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finger, Holger, Goeke, Caspar, Diekamp, Dorena, Standvoß, Kai & König, Peter
2017LabVanced: A unified JavaScript framework for online studies. International Conference on Computational Social Science (Cologne).
Fischer, Olga
2007Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann’s parameters and the issue of scope. In Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio
2004Exploring grammaticalization from below. In What makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, Kimps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An & Brems, Lot
2016Mirativity and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T.
2009Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Linguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.) 185–214. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2002On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575–601. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Correia Saavedra, David
2018The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 357–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoefler, Stefan H. & Smith, Andrew D. M.
Hopper, Paul
1991On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Annette
2008Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34(2): 85–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaatari, Henrik & Larsson, Tove
2019Using the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to study the syntactic development of I think and I’m sure. English Studies 100(6): 710–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2021Funny you should say that: On the use of semi-insubordination in English. Constructions and Frames 13(1): 126–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konvička, Martin
2019Paradigms, host classes, and ancillariness. In Grammar – Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change, Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 277–304. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2004Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32(2): 152–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015[1982]Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
2017Grammaticalization and automation. JournaLIPP 5: 33–48.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén
2016From clause to adverb: On the history of maybe. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.) 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David
2012The perception of gonna and gotta – A study of emancipation in progress. In Proceedings of the 5th ISEL conference ExLing 2012, 27–29 August 2012, Athens, Greece, Antonis Botinis (ed.) 77–80. Athens: ISEL Editions.
Forthcoming. Could be it’s grammaticalization: Usage patterns of the epistemic phrases (it) could/might be. To appear in Journal of English Linguistics.
Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David
2020Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions. Categories, Co-text, and Context [Studies in Language Companion Series 216], Pascal Hohaus & Rainer Schulze (eds), 79–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony
2017The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–344.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey
2006Current changes in English syntax. In The Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Welsh, Alan
1978Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 10(1): 29–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mélac, Eric
2022The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics 26(2): 331–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd
2021Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel, Rawoens, Gudrun & Beijering, Karin
2014Från matrissats till satsadverb? En diakron studie av adverbet kanske.   [URL] > (28 December 2022).
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek
2018The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94(4): 867–901. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2019R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. |  [URL] > (28 December 2022).
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide
1998Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds), 187–273. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony
1991A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2002From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 19–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Constructions in grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (ed.) 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usonienė, Aurelia & Šolienė, Audrone
2012Choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuanian: A corpus-based study. In Corpus Studies in Contrastive Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics 43], Stefania Marzo, Kris Heylen & Gert De Sutter (eds.) 141–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie
2011I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2). 295–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn
2014Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words. Folia Linguistica 48(2): 425–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar