Part of
Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle and Ilse Depraetere
[Constructional Approaches to Language 32] 2021
► pp. 5379
References (32)
References
Askedal, J. O. (1999). Zur Frage der Auxiliarisierung einiger deutscher Verben “anstehen, belieben, bleiben, brauchen, drohen, gedenken, machen, pflegen, scheinen, suchen, versprechen, verstehen, wissen” mit Infinitiv im Lichte der Grammatikalisierungstheorie. In B. Skibitzki, & B. Wotjak (Eds.), Linguistik und Deutsch als Fremdsprache: Festschrift für Gerhard Helbig zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 1–13. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Tagliamonte, S. (2012). Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.) (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Beckner, C. (2010). Usage-based theory. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, pp. 827–856. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Correia Saavedra, D. (2019). Measurements of grammaticalization: Developing a quantitative index for the study of grammatical change. [URL], Accessed January 1, 2020.
(2018). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In K. van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category Change from a Constructional Perspective, pp. 93–118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekalo, V. (2019). Modale Konstruktionen mit den Verben vermögen, wissen, verstehen, bekommen: Eine konstruktionsgrammatische Untersuchung. [URL], Accessed May 1, 2019.
Diewald, G. (1997). Grammatikalisierung: Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2009). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geyken, A. (2007). The DWDS corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), Idioms and collocations: Corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies, pp. 23–41. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guardamagna, C. (2018). Type frequency, productivity and schematicity in the evolution of the Latin secundum NP construction. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar, pp. 169–201. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamp, B., & Feldweg, H. (1997). GermaNet – a lexical-semantic net for German. In P. Vossen (Ed.), Automatic information extraction and building of lexical semantic resources for NLP applications: ACL Workshop proceedings, July 12th 1997, Madrid, pp. 9–15. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2004). World Lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013a). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, pp. 458–475. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, pp. 21–42. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume I. Theoretical and methodological issues, pp. 17–36. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neels, J. (2015). The history of the quasi-auxiliary USE(D) TO: A usage-based account. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 5(2), 177–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. (2010). Grammaticalization and the it-cleft construction. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, pp. 221–243. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, P., & van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & König, E. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization: Volume I. Theoretical and methodological issues, pp. 189–218. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tummers, J., Speelman, D., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2015). Lectal constraining of lexical collocations: How a word’s company is influenced by the usage settings. Constructions and Frames, 7(1), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar