References
Beekhuizen, Barend
2016De zijnsstatus van de afhankelijke V1-constructie in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 21(1): 33–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny
2007Conditionele constructies met moest(en) en mocht(en) in Belgisch-Nederlands en Nederlands-Nederlands. Neerlandistiek 7(5), 1–23.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne, Delva, Sara & Leuschner, Torsten
2016A (very) imperfect sandwich: English should, German sollte and Dutch mocht/moest as grammaticalizing markers of conditionality. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28(4): 282–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald
2007Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Proceedings of the colloquium, Amsterdam, 27 – 28 October 2004, Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer, Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Acadademy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Stevens, Michaël, De Deyne, Simon, Voorspoels, Wouter & Storms, Gert
2014Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica 150: 80–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budts, Sara & Petré, Peter
2020Putting connections centre stage in diachronic construction grammar. In Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 27], Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 318–351. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 7: 1–28.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie
2013The grammaticalization of the have perfect in Dutch. A corpus study of contextual extension and semantic generalization. Language Sciences 36: 103–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2003Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Daalder, Saskia
1983Aspects of grammatical meaning: the positioning of the Dutch finite verb. Sprache, Diskurs und Text [Linguistische Arbeiten 144], René Jongen, Sabine De Knop, Peter H. Nelde & Marie-Paule Quix (eds), 60–69. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve
2005Mental Spaces in Grammar. Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danielsen, Niels
1968Zum Wesen des Konditionalsatzes nicht zuletzt im Indoeuropäischen. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice
1981Markers of derived illocutionary force and paradoxes of speech act modifiers. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 2: 47–73.Google Scholar
De Troij, Robbert & Van de Velde, Freek
2020Beyond mere text frequency: assessing subtle grammaticalization by different quantitative measures. A case study on the Dutch soort construction. Languages 5(4). [URL] (27 February 2023)
De Vogelaer, Gunther, Koster, Dietha & Leuschner, Torsten
(eds) 2020German and Dutch in contrast. Synchronic, diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives [Konvergenz und Divergenz Sprachvergleichende Studien zum Deutschen 11]. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubossarsky, Haim, Grossman, Eitan & Weinshall, Daphna
2017Outta control: Laws of semantic change and inherent biases in word representation models. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Martha Palmer, Rebecca Hwa & Sebastian Riedel (eds), 1147–1156. Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubossarsky, Haim, Tsvetkov, Yulia, Dyer, Chris & Grossman, Eitan
2015A bottom up approach to category mapping and meaning change. NetWordS 2015 Word Knowledge and Word Usage, 66–70.Google Scholar
Dubossarsky, Haim, Weinshall, Daphna & Grossman, Eitan
2016Verbs change more than nouns: A bottom-up computational approach to semantic change. Lingua e Linguaggio 15(1): 5–25.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Oskar
1886Grundzüge der deutschen Syntax nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Stuttgart: Cotta.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2007Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness. Theoretical and empirical foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed), 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feuillet, Jack
1995Bulgare. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren
2020What about Grammar? Using BERT embeddings to explore functional-semantic shifts of semi-lexical and grammatical constructions. In CHR 2020: Workshop on Computational Humanities Research, November 18–20, 2020, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Folgert Karsdorp, Barbara McGillivray, Adina Nerghes & Melvin Wevers (eds), 257–268. Aachen: RWTH Aachen.Google Scholar
Garg, Nikhil, Schiebinger, Londa, Jurafsky, Dan & Zou, James
2018Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. PNAS 115(16): E3635–E3644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Eberhard
1998Grammatik der portugiesischen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Hill, Jennifer
2007Data analysis using regression and multilevel hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Del Giudice, Alex
2005Subject-auxiliary inversion: a natural category. The Linguistic Review 22: 411–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2007Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1978Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, William L., Leskovec, Jure & Jurafsky, Dan
2016Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vol. 1: Long Papers, Kathrin Erk & Noah A. Smith (eds), 1489–1501. Berlin: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle
1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization. Papers presented at the New Reflections on Grammaticalization II Conference held at the University of Amsterdam on April 4 – 6, 2002 [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010The behaviour-before-coding principle in syntactic change. In Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale. Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels, Franck Floricic (ed), 493–506. Paris: Presses de L’École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2003On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27(3): 529–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
1998Negation und Interrogation. Studien zur Universalität ihrer Funktionen [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 195]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermkens, Harrie M. & van de Ketterij, Cornelis
1980Grammaticale interpretatie van zeventiende-eeuwse teksten; instructiegrammatica. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Hernández Díaz, Axel
2019Las perífrasis con el verb haber + infinitivo. De los valores expresados per estas formas. In La gramática en la diacronía, Mar Garachana Camarero (ed), 197–228. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyer.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1975The Simple Sentence in Proto-Germanic. Den Haag: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias, Verhagen, Arie, Vogl, Ulrike & van der Wouden, Ton
(eds) 2006Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1940A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part 5. Syntax. Vol. 4. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Brysbaert, Marc & New, Boris
2010SUBTLEX-NL: a new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods 42(3): 643–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & van der Auwera, Johan
1988Clause integration in German and Dutch conditional, concessive conditional, and concessive clauses. In Clause linking in grammar and discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra Thompson (eds), 101–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990How to do things with junk: exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuschner, Torsten & Van den Nest, Daan
Levshina, Natalia & Heylen, Kris
2014A radically data-driven construction grammar: experiments with Dutch causative constructions. In Extending the scope of construction grammar [Cognitive Linguistics Research 54], Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds), 17–46. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandera, Paweł, Keuleers, Emmanuel & Brysbaert, Marc
2017Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: a review and empirical validation. Journal of Memory and Language 92: 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neil, Wayne
1978The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: a study in the causes of language change. Orbis 27: 248–286.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Reynaert, Martin, Hoste, Véronique & Schuurman, Ineke
2013The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch authors. In Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-programme, Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds), 219–247. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent & Hilpert, Martin
2017A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(4): 490–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Piersoul, Jozefien, De Troij, Robbert & Van de Velde, Freek
2021150 years of written Dutch: the construction of the Dutch Corpus of Contemporary and Late Modern Periodicals. Nederlandse Taalkunde 26(3): 339–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk
2019Where, how and why does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive-prepositional alternation. PhD dissertation. Leuven: KU Leuven.
2021What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 35: 283–294.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Speelman, Dirk
2017Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs. A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica 51(1): 207–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2019R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL] (27 February 2023).
Renmans, Bram & van Belle, William
2003The use of the particle dan in Dutch conditional sentences. Leuvense Bijdragen 92: 141–157.Google Scholar
Riese, Timothy
1984The conditional sentence in Ugrian, Permian and Volgaic languages. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.Google Scholar
Ruigendijk, Esther, Van de Velde, Freek & Vismans, Roel
(eds) 2012Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 98 (Special Issue: Germanic Sandwich 2010. Dutch between English and German). Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Saavedra, David C.
2019Measurements of grammaticalization: developing a quantitative Index for the study of grammatical change. PhD dissertation. Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel.
Scott, Alan
2016Guest Editor’s Preface. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28 (Special Issue: New Directions in Comparative Germanic): 279–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Cornillie, Bert, Divjak, Dagmar & Van den Eynde, Karel
2005Degrees of Clause Integration. From Endotactic to Exotactic Subordination in Dutch. Linguistics 43(3): 471–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, van der Horst, Joop & Van de Velde, Freek
2017Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 101 (Special Issue: A Germanic Sandwich 2013).Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Heylen, Kris
2020Schaalvergroting in het syntactische alternantieonderzoek: een nieuwe analyse van het presentatieve er met automatisch gegenereerde predictoren. Nederlandse Taalkunde 25(1): 101–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th
2003Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Nest, Daan
2010aEmergenz und Grammatikalisierung von V1-Konditionalen: ein Rekonstruktionsversuch am Beispiel des Deutschen und Englischen. PhD dissertation, UGent.
2010bShould conditionals be emergent …: asyndetic subordination in German and English as a challenge to grammaticalization research. In Formal evidence in grammaticalization research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 93–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan
1986Conditionals and speech acts. In On conditionals, Elizabeth C. Traugott, Alice Ter Meulen, Judith Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds). 197–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Horst, Joop M.
1984Over vorm en inhoud van bijzinnen. In Vorm en funktie in tekst en taal: bundel opstellen verschenen ter gelegenheid van de voltooiing van het honderdste deel van het Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde [Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse taal- en letterkunde 100], Dirk M. Bakker, B. C. Damsteegt, J. L. A. Heestermans, P. F. J. Obbema, A. Sassen, M. H. Schenkeveld, M. A. Schenkeveld-van der Dussen, P. G. J. van Sterkenburg, L. Strongholt, J. P. A. Stroop, J. Taeldeman, G. C. Zieleman (eds), 154–179. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995Analytische taalkunde. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
2008Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2014Degeneracy: the maintenance of constructional networks. In The extending scope of construction grammar [Cognitive Linguistics Research 54], Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds), 141–179. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Lamiroy, Béatrice
2017External possessors in West Germanic and Romance: differential speed in the drift towards NP configurationality. In Aspects of grammaticalization: (inter)subjectification and unidirectionality [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 305], Hubert Cuyckens, Lobke Ghesquière & Daniël Van Olmen (eds), 353–399. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Norde, Muriel
2016Exaptation. Taking stock of a controversial notion in linguistics. In Exaptation and language change [Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series 4. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 336], Muriel Norde & Freek Van de Velde (eds), 1–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Pijpops, Dirk
2021Investigating lexical effects in syntax with regularized regression (Lasso). Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science 6(2): 166–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Haeringen, Coenraad B.
1956Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Venables, William N. & Ripley, Brian D.
2002Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th edition. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vismans, Roel, Hüning, Matthias & Weerman, Fred
2010Guest editors’ preface. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22(4) (Special Issue: Dutch between English and German): 297–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley
2016ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, François, Romain, Henry, Lionel & Müller, Kirill
2020dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.8.5. (27 February 2023).Google Scholar