Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:4 (2023) ► pp.743–788

From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar

A natural evolution of the paradigm

ORCID logo | University of Oregon
ORCID logo | Ghent University
The term grammaticalization originally denoted a particular outcome of language change (lexis > morphology), then got expanded to practically all studies involving language change, the processes that create such changes, and a theory modeling these. These expansions have been challenged in the literature as conceptually flawed. A usage-based analysis of the evolution of the concept culminates in the use of the term grammaticalization as a “flag” of a particular approach to linguistics. However, the theoretical premises of grammaticalization studies are entirely compatible with the premises of Diachronic Construction Grammar (DCxG). All studies within the “expanded” concept of grammaticalization can be explicitly modeled within DCxG, which provides formalism of sufficient detail to map the gradual nature of language change in cases of grammaticalization and beyond. Consequently, the most vigorous attacks on grammaticalization lose power when grammaticalization is seen as part of a larger, more complete theory of language and language change.
Keywords: evolution of the concept of grammaticalization, diachronic construction grammar, gradual nature of language change, theory of science, history of linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammaticalization: A usage-based analysis
  • 3.Brief introduction to Diachronic Construction Grammar
    • 3.1Construction Grammar
    • 3.2Diachronic Construction Grammar
  • 4.Constructions: The locus of all grammaticalization
  • 5.Constructions beyond the margins of grammaticalization
  • 6.Conclusions: The benefits of a constructional framework
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20079.gil
References (142)
References
Abbott, Miriam. 1991. Macushi. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 31, 23–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning (ed.). 2001. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2015. Morphological change. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 264–285. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The development of case in Germanic. In Jóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. In Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 343–373. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 41(3–4). 321–377.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds). 2009. The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012a. “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society 110(3). 363–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2020. How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 197–238. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Luján (eds). 2020. Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1). 28–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara. McGillwray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional Semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3). 511–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin & Nancy Chang. 2013. Embodied Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2010. Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 245–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer. 2004 (eds.). What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 1999. Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change. In Andreas Blank & Peter Koch (eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 61–90. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag (eds). 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins. 1992. Patterns of language: Structure, variation, change. San Diego: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian. D. Joseph & Richard. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In Thomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4). 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 231. 378–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 821. 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle (ed.). 2001. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. [Special Issue]. Language Sciences 23(2–3).Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Richard Janda. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their Problems. Language Sciences 23(2–3). 93–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds). 2018. Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2017. Between the historical languages and the reconstructed Language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 1221. 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don. 2014. Complex coordination in diachrony: Two Sogeram case studies. Diachronica 31(3). 379–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language 41(3). 577–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Grammatical reconstruction: The Sogeram languages of New Guinea. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2004. Grammaticalization: from syntax to morphology. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehman, Joachim Mugdan & Stavos Skopetas (eds.). Morphologie / Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 1590–1599. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization and syntax: A functional view. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 365–377. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2015. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2009. Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 371. 445–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Review of Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 1371. 108–121.Google Scholar
. 2020. Paradigms lost – Paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 278–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Tonya Kim Dewey, Carlee Arnett, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2017. Dative sickness: A phylogenetic analysis of argument structure evolution in Germanic. Language 93(1). e1–e22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Irina Nikolae (ed.), Finiteness, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Honre Watanabe (eds). 2016. Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2016. Syntactic reconstruction in Indo-European: The state of the art. In Joaquín Gorrochategui, Carlos García Castillero & José. M. Vallejo (eds.), Franz Bopp and his Comparative Grammar Model (1816–2016), [special monographic volume] Veleia 331. 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. Introduction. In Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2013. Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 111–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 641. 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites paradox: The emergence of the into-causative. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 46–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frotscher, Michael, Guus Kroonen & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2022. Indo-European inroads into the syntactic–etymological interface: A reconstruction of the PIE verbal root *menkʷ ‘to be short; to lack’ and its argument structure. Historische Sprachforschung 1331(2020). 62–96.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1993a. The rigid postverbal subject in Panare: A historical explanation. International Journal of American Linguistics 591. 44–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993b. The development of tense markers from demonstrative pronouns in Panare (Cariban). Studies in Language 171. 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. On Reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. In Spike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 65–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Are there universal cognitive motivations for ergativity? In Francesc Queixalós (ed.), L’ergativité en Amazonie, Vol. 21, 1–37. Brasília: CNRS, IRD and the Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, UnB.Google Scholar
. 2008. Explaining similarities between main clauses and nominalized clauses. In Ana Carla Bruno, Frantomé Pacheco, Francesc Queixalos & Leo Wetzels (eds.), La structure des langues amazoniennes [Special Issue], Amérindia 321. 57–75.Google Scholar
. 2011. Diachronic pathways that create stance constructions in selected South American languages. Paper presented at the workshop Stance Marking Across Languages: Typological, Diachronic & Discourse Perspectives , Hong Kong, 18–20 July.
. 2012. Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. In Lyle Campbell & Veronica Grondona (eds.), Handbook of South American Languages, 441–494. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Reconstructing the copulas and nonverbal predicate constructions in Cariban. In Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Flávia de Castro Alves. 2020. Reconstructing the source of nominative-absolutive alignment in two Amazonian language families. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Luján, Reconstructing Syntax, 47–107. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Katharina Haude. 2011. The origins of the Movima hierarchical alignment: Internal reconstruction. Paper presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics , Osaka, July 25–29.
Gildea, Spike & Joana Jansen. 2018. The development of referential hierarchy effects in Sahaptian. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 131–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike, Eugenio Luján, & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2020. The curious case of reconstructing syntax. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Luján & Spike Gildea (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 1–44. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Géraldine Walther. 2015. Information load determines optionality in Cariban. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1–3 August.
Gisborne, Nikolas & Amanda Patten. 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 71. 394–415.Google Scholar
. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine & Spike Gildea (eds.). 2018. The evolution of argument coding patterns in South American languages. [Special Issue]. Journal of Historical Linguistics 8(1).Google Scholar
Guirardello, Raquel & Spike Gildea. 2011. Construction Grammar and syntactic reconstruction: Internal Reconstruction of main clause grammar in Trumai (Isolate). Paper presented at the workshop “Diachronic Construction Grammar”, 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Universidad de la Rioja, Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September.
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 255–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. On degrammaticalization. In Barry Blake & Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th international conference on historical linguistics, 163–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemayer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Word order change as grammaticalisation. In Jens Nørgård-Sørensen, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Connecting grammaticalisation, 171–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Where did this future construction come from? A case study of Swedish komma att V. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 107–131. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes, 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Brian D. Joseph. 2003. On language, change, and language change – Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Cynthia A., Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov, Esther Le Mair & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2019. Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change: How to succeed in Indo-European without really trying. Diachronica 36(4). 463–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization: A general critique. In Heike Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 193–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2021. Some observations on what grammaticalization is and is not. Cadernos De Linguística 2(1), e343. ( DOI logo)Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2012. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcome, 15–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koehn, Edward & Sally Sharp Koehn. 1986. Apalai. In Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol. 11, 33–127. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 511. 55–71. (Reprinted in: Esquisses linguistiques II. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 38–541, 1975). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982/1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Köln: Universität zu Köln. Republished in 1995 by Lincom, Münich.Google Scholar
. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Camilla Wide. 2005. Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(2). 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 841. 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia. Revue internationale de synthese scientifique Vol. XII, no XXVI–6.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2014. The grammaticalization chain of case function: Extension and reanalysis of case-marking vs. universals of grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 69–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 701. 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII1. 219–258.Google Scholar
Rostila, Jouni. 2004. Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In Fred Karlsson (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Helsinki, January 7–9, 2004. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki. Available at: [URL] (last access 2 November 2022).
Sag, Ivan. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena. 2015. Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020. Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc (ed.). 2011. Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2012. Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development – Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 361. 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez-González, Juan G. & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2019. Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic. Folia Linguistica Historica 40(2). 555–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Walter Bisang. 2004. What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 3–20. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ilioaia, Mihaela
2024. Constructing Meaning: Historical Changes in mihi est and habeo Constructions in Romanian. Languages 9:2 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Vázquez-González, Juan G.
2024. Updating Old English Dative–Genitives: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account. Languages 9:6 ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.