Article published In:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 3953
References
Andersen, Henning
2001 “Actualization and the (Uni)directionality of Change.” In Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, ed. by Henning Andersen, 225–248. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, Ad
2014 “A Usage-based Approach to Borrowability.” In New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations, ed. by Eline Zenner, and Gitte Kristiansen, 19–39. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015 “A Usage-based Approach to Code-switching: The Need for Reconciling Structure and Function.” In Code-switching between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Gerald Stell, and Kofi Yakpo, 19–38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Backus, Ad, Seza Doğruöz, and Bernd Heine
2011 “Salient Stages in Contact-induced Grammatical Change: Evidence from Synchronic vs. Diachronic Contact situations.” Language Sciences 33 (5): 738–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2011 “The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account.” Lingua 121 (1): 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Spike Gildea
2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 1–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea
(eds) 2015Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael
2013 “Individual Differences and Usage-based Grammar.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer
(eds) 2000Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander, and Gabriele Diewald
2008 “Introduction: Constructions and Language Change.” In Constructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs, and Gabriele Diewald, 1–21. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter
1998aGrammaticalization and Language Contact, Constructions and Positions.” In The Limits of Grammaticalization, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, and Paul J. Hopper, 13–58. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b “Verb Serialization and Attractor Positions: Constructions and their Potential Impact on Language Change and Language Contact.” In Typology of Verbal Categories, ed. by Leonid Kulikov, and Heinz Vater, 254–271. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent, and George Walkden
2015 “On Constructing a Theory of Grammatical Change.” Transactions of the Philological Society 113 (3): 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003a “Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency.” In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b “Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Volume 21, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2011 “Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A Diachronic Perspective.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59 (4): 387–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck
2011 “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Dirk Noël
2012 “The Dutch Evidential NCI: A Case of Constructional Attrition.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Tracing the History of Deontic NCI Patterns in Dutch: A Case of Polysemy Copying.” In Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker, and Jukka Tuominen, 213–236. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2010 “The Origins of Grammaticalization in the Verbalization of Experience.” Linguistics 48 (1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
2012 “Different Speakers, Different Grammars: Individual Differences in Native Language Attainment.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (3): 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
David, Oana
DeLancey, Scott
1994 “Grammaticalization and Linguistic Theory.” In Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages, ed. by Jule Gomez de Garcia, and David S. Rood, 1–22. Boulder: University of Colorado.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2009 “Analysing Reanalysis.” Lingua 119 (11): 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “The Course of Actualization.” Language 88 (3): 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a “How Gradual Change Progresses: The Interaction between Convention and Innovation.” Language Variation and Change 28 (1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b “The Roots of Ruthless: Individual Variation as a Window on Mental Representation.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (2):250–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde
(eds) 2013On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Special issue of Studies in Language (37, 3).Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2014 “Usage-based Linguistics.” Oxford Bibliographies. ([URL], last accessed on 26 February 2016). DOI logo
Doğruöz, Seza, and Ad Backus
2009 “Innovative Constructions in Dutch Turkish: An Assessment of On-going Contact Induced Change.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12 (1): 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2007Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 “On Analogy as the Motivation for Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 32 (2): 336–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “An Analogical Approach to Grammaticalization.” In Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, ed. by Ekaterini Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, 181–218. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009 “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames 1 (2): 262–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Principles of Constructional Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1990 “Constructional Borrowing and the Process of Factorization.” Unpublished manuscript. ([URL], last accessed on 18 February 2016)
Harris, Roy
2007 “Integrational Linguistics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics: 2007 Installment, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, Jef Verschueren, and Eline Versluys, 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Heiko Narrog, and Haiping Long
2016 “Constructional Change vs. Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 40 (1): 137–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendery, Rachel
2013 “Constructional Etymology: The Sources of Relative Clauses.” In Lexical and Structural Etymology: Beyond Word Histories, ed. by Robert Mailhammer, 84–119. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael
1996 “The way constructions grow.” In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by Adele E. Goldberg, 217–230. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Barlow
2000 “Introduction: A Usage-based Conception of Language.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, vii–xxviii. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2008 “Borrowed Rhetorical Constructions as Starting Points for Grammaticalization.” In Constructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs, and Gabriele Diewald, 196–230. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2007 “Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory.” Functions of Language 14 (2): 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “The Nominative and Infinitive in Late Modern English: A Diachronic Constructionist Approach.” Journal of English Linguistics 36 (4): 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Grammaticalization in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” In Anais do IV Seminário Internacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática e XVII Seminário Nacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática: Teoria da gramaticalização e gramática de construções, ed. by Maria Angélica Furtado da Cunha, Edvaldo Balduíno Bispo, and José Romerito Silva, 5–12. Natal, RN, Brazil: UFRN.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk, and Timothy Colleman
Peng, Rui
2013 “A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account of the Chinese Cause-Complement Pivotal Construction.” Language Sciences 401: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “The Integration of Exemplars and Prior Knowledge in the Extension of Schematic Constructions: Evidence from Chinese Emerge-Hide Construction.” Language Sciences 561: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Katrien Beuls, and Freek Van de Velde
2015 “The Rise of the Verbal Weak Inflection in Germanic: An Agent-Based Model.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 51: 81–102.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2015 “A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 31: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Annette Mantlik
2015, “Entrenchment in Historical Corpora? Reconstructing Dead Authors’ Minds from their Usage Profiles.” Anglia 133 (4): 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc
(ed.) 2012Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi
2015 “On the Relation between Inheritance and Change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 173–212. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003 “Constructions in Grammaticalization.” In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a “ ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was …’: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogic Contexts.” In Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. by Robin Cooper, and Ruth Kempson, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
2008b “Grammatikalisierung, emergente Konstruktionen und der Begriff der “Neuheit”.” In Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Kerstin Fischer, 5–32. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2015 “Toward a Coherent Account of Grammatical Constructionalization.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 51–79. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Contentful Constructionalization.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 4 (2): 256–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2008a “Words and Constructions in Grammaticalization: The End of the English Impersonal Construction.” In Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change, ed. by Susan M. Fitzmaurice, and Donka Minkova, 301–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b “Constructions in Grammaticalization and Lexicalization: Evidence from the History of a Composite Predicate in English.” In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, ed. by Graeme Trousdale, and Nikolas Gisborne, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008c “A Constructional Approach to Lexicalization Processes in the History of English: Evidence from Possessive Constructions.” Word Structure 11: 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Issues in Constructional Approaches to Grammaticalization in English.” In Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues, ed. by Ekaterini Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, 51–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012a “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language 37 (3): 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2011 “Left-Peripheral Expansion of the English NP.” English Language and Linguistics 15 (2): 387–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Degeneracy: The Maintenance of Constructional Networks.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi
2016The Evolution of Case Grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2000 “Interpreting Usage: Construing the History of Dutch Causal Verbs.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 261–286. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra
2004 “Grammaticalisation through Constructions: The Story of Causative Have in English.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21: 159–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 15 other publications

Anthonissen, Lynn
2020. Cognition in construction grammar: Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2  pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Becker, Israela
2023. It’s all about the sentential construction. Studies in Language 47:2  pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Olga
2018. Analogy. In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202],  pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Olga
2020. What Role Do Iconicity and Analogy Play in Grammaticalization?. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics,  pp. 314 ff. DOI logo
Gregersen, Sune
2018. Some (critical) questions for diachronic construction grammar. Folia Linguistica 52:s39-s2  pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot
2022. Analogical Interference in Constructionalization: The Emergence of the Hebrew Desiderative ba le-X Y. Cognitive Semantics 8:1  pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change?. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4],  pp. 475 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199  pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1  pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2022. Individual differences in the decline of the Deontic nci construction. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 9:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
Taverniers, Miriam
2018. Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 25:1  pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 february 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.