Article published In:
Vol. 32:1 (2015) ► pp.3468
Anttila, Raimo
2003Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 425–440. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1968Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 21. 119–127.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byloo, Pieter
2009Modality and negation. Antwerp: University of Antwerp dissertation.Google Scholar
Byloo, Pieter & Jan Nuyts
2011The diachrony of Dutch mogen . Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 1131. 1–192.Google Scholar
2014Meaning change in the Dutch core modals: (Inter)subjectification in a grammatical paradigm. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 461. 85–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. The diachrony of Dutch moeten. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics.
CD-ROM Middelnederlands
1998 Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1964Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 21. 139–186.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000Explaining language change. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Diepeveen, Janneke, Ronny Boogaart, Jenneke Brantjes, Pieter Byloo, Theo Janssen & Jan Nuyts
2006Modale uitdrukkingen in Belgisch-Nederlands en Nederlands-Nederlands. Münster, Germany: Nodus.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon
1997The theory of functional grammar, vol. 11. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Duinhoven, A.M
1997Middelnederlandse syntaxis, vol. 2, De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2007Morphosyntactic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William & Robert Van Valin
1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde van Aken, Vicky van den Heede & Dirk Speelman
2000Het ConDiv-corpus geschreven Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 51. 356–363.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1980The iconicity of grammar. Language 561. 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees
1989Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 251. 127–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
2003Analogical change. In Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 441–460. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Traugott
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroesch, Samuel
1926Analogy as a factor in semantic change. Language 21. 35–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1990Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 11. 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006Subjectification, grammaticalization and conceptual archetypes. In Angeliki Athanasiadou, Costas Canakis & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Subjectification, 17–40. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne
1985The influence of semantic fields on semantic change. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics — Historical word formation, 283–296. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José
2010Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinet, André
1955Économie des changements phonétiques. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2009Modality in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nederlandse Taalunie
2004Corpus Gesproken Nederlands, Version 2.0. Leiden: TST-Centrale INL.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
2001aEpistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001bSubjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 331. 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005The modal confusion: On terminology and the concepts behind it. In Alex Klinge & Henrik H. Müller (eds.), Modality: Studies in form and function, 5–38. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
2006Modality. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Kunnen diachroon. Taal en Tongval 591. 118–148.Google Scholar
2008Qualificational meanings, illocutionary signals, and the cognitive planning of language use. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 61. 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009aThe ‘one-commitment-per-clause’ principle and the cognitive status of qualificational categories. Linguistics 471. 141–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009bThe Dutch modals and (de)grammaticalization. In Stef Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers & Mieke van Herreweghe (eds.), From will to well, 347–355. Ghent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
2012Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 51. 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013De-auxiliarization without de-modalization in the Dutch core modals: A case of collective degrammaticalization? Language Sciences 361. 124–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Analyses of the modal meanings. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.) Oxford handbook of mood and modality Oxford Oxford University Press DOI logo
Nuyts, Jan, Pieter Byloo & Janneke Diepeveen
2010On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten . Journal of Pragmatics 421. 16–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oertel, Hanns
1901Lectures on the study of language. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
Ostaeyen, Gert Van & Jan Nuyts
2004De diachronie van kunnen . Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 1091. 1–186.Google Scholar
Pijnenburg, W.J.J., K.H. van Dalen-Oskam, K.A.C. Depuydt & T.H. Schoonheim
(eds.) 2001Vroegmiddelnederlands woordenboek. Leiden: Gopher Publishers.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
2003Syntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, Gustaf
1931Meaning and change of meaning, with special reference to the English language. Gothenburg: Elander.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C
1989On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. Language 651. 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
1995Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein & Suzanne Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectification, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C
2010(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth & Richard Dasher
2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trier, Jost
1931Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1986Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Valin, Robert Van & Randy LaPolla
1997Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 20 other publications

Abraham, Werner
2020. Modality in Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics, DOI logo
Almela-Sánchez, Moisés
2023. Daniela Pettersson-Traba, The development of the concept of SMELL in American English: A usage-based view of near-synonymy (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 51). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2022. Pp. xviii + 270. ISBN 9783110792201.. English Language and Linguistics  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Caers, Wim & Sune Gregersen
2019. Wat mutt, dat mutt*. Nederlandse Taalkunde 24:3  pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Coussé, Evie & Gerlof Bouma
2022. Semantic scope restrictions in complex verb constructions in Dutch. Linguistics 60:1  pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
2017. The aggregate and the individual: thoughts on what non-alternating authors reveal about linguistic alternations – a response to Petré. English Language and Linguistics 21:2  pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren & Charlotte Maekelberghe
Gregersen, Sune
2020. Language death, modality, and functional explanations. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52:1  pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Harmes, Ingeborg
Inglese, Guglielmo
2022. How do middle voice markers and valency reducing constructions interact? Typological tendencies and diachronic considerations. Folia Linguistica 56:2  pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Kolyaseva, Alena
2022. The Russian prepositional TIPA and VRODE in online student discourse: evidence of attraction?. Linguistics 60:5  pp. 1451 ff. DOI logo
Koohkan, Sepideh & Jan Nuyts
2021. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification in an Iranian modal verb: A paradox resolved by Dutch. Australian Journal of Linguistics 41:4  pp. 389 ff. DOI logo
Nesset, Tore
2022. Language Change and Cognitive Linguistics, DOI logo
Nesset, Tore & Anastasia Makarova
2018. The decade construction rivalry in Russian. Diachronica 35:1  pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Nuyts, Jan
2024. On the link between grammaticalization and subjectification. Studies in Language 48:3  pp. 608 ff. DOI logo
Nuyts, Jan, Henri-Joseph Goelen & Wim Caers
2018. Hoeven diachroon. Taal en Tongval 70:1  pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Pettersson-Traba, Daniela
2022. Chapter 7. Distributional changes in synonym sets. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 359],  pp. 120 ff. DOI logo
Smet, Hendrik De, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29:2  pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Tantucci, Vittorio
2021. Language and Social Minds, DOI logo
Thegel, Miriam & Josefin Lindgren
2020. Subjective and intersubjective modality: a quantitative approach to Spanish modal verbs. Studia Neophilologica 92:1  pp. 124 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 may 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.