Part of
New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban and José Vicente Lozano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 202] 2018
► pp. 75104
References (70)
References
Auer, Peter & Murray, Robert W. 2015. Hermann Paul’s ‘Principles of Language History’ Revisited. Translations and Reflections. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bao, Zhiming. 2010. Must in Singapore English. Lingua 120: 1727–1737.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity. Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic [Constructional Approaches to Language 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike (eds). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Gildea, Spike. 2015. Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 1–50.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriëlle (eds). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David J., French, Robert M. & Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1992. High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 4: 185–211. <[URL]>DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth . In Traugott & Trousdale (eds), 75–104.Google Scholar
. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601–633.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28: 83–102.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Fischer, Olga. 2017. The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone Pfenninger (eds), 240–268. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Ghesquière, Lobke & Van de Velde, Freek (eds). 2015. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change [Benjamins Current Topics 79]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, Terence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species. The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Ms. <[URL]>
Edwin, E. A. 1973. Analogy and Association in Linguistics and Psychology. Athens GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Entwisle, Doris R., Forsyth, Daniel F. & Muuss, Rolf. 1964. The syntactic-paradigmatic shift in children’s word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 3: 19–29.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin, Susan M. 1961. Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word-association. The American Journal of Psychology 74: 361–372.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1997. The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English compared with German and Dutch. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jaček Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel (eds), 265–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 149–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Approaches to Morphosyntactic Change from a Functional and Formal Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 31–42. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2015. The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again. In Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English, Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey (eds), 120–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik & Van der Wurff, Wim. 2017. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Olbertz, Hella. In press. The role played by analogy in processes of language change: The case of English HAVE-to compared to Spanish TENER-que. In Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax [Studies in English Language Series], Nuria Yáñez-Bouza, Willem B. Hollmann, Emma Moore & Linda Van Bergen (eds). Cambridge: CUP.
Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Hoffmann & Trousdale (eds), 419–437.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 2003. Why we’re so smart. In Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds), 195–235. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34: 752–775.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Anggoro, Florencia K. & Klibanoff, Raquel S. 2011. Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development 82: 1173–1188.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Holyoak, Keith J. & Kokinov, Boicho K. (eds). 2001. The Analogical Mind. Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Namy, Laura L. 2006. Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15: 297–301.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Smith, Linsey. 2012. Analogical reasoning. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd edn, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (ed.), 130–136. Oxford: Elsevier.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adèle E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. InHoffman & Trousdale(eds), 15–31.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Naomi, McGregor, Karla K. & Graham, Anne. 2007. Conceptual organization at 6 and 8 years of age: Evidence from the semantic priming of object decisions. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 50: 161–176.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In Hoffman & Trousdale (eds), 307–328.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas. 1995. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
. 2001. Epilogue. Analogy as the core of cognition. In Gentner, Holyoak & Kokinov (eds), 499–538.Google Scholar
. 2013. The nature of categories and concepts. Lecture delivered at Stanford, March 6, 2013. Made available on Youtube, March 2014.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas & Sander, Emmanuel. 2013. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kalénine, Solène, Peyrin, Carole, Pichat, Cédric, Segebarth, Christoph, Bonthoux, Françoise & Baciu, Monica. 2009. The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioural and fMRI study. NeuroImage 44: 1152–1162.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–897.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther & Heine, Bernd. 2014. Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: Two competing domains. In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds), 348–363. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane/Penguin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1974. Remarks on analogical change. In Historical Linguistics, Vol. I., John M. Anderson & Charles Jones (eds), 257–275. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1993. Etymology. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30: 39–53.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar and the development of non-deontic be bound to . Lingua 199: 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1909 [1880]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 4th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2002. The Neuroscience of Language. On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Order. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 107–138.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2011. Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar. In Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 11], Luc Steels (ed.), 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Fluid Construction Grammar. In Hoffman & Trousdale (eds), 153–167.Google Scholar
Strong, Herbert Augustus. 1889. Principles of the History of Language. New York NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008a. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language. Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Variation, Selection, Development. Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jager & Tonjes Veenstra (eds), 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008b. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs & Diewald (eds), 23–45.Google Scholar
. 2008c. “All that he endeavoured to prove was” …: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, Robin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds), 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 51–80.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds). 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Grammaticalization and Language Change. New Reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], Kirstin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Construction grammar. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics, Merja Kytö & Pavi Pahta (eds), 65–78. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel & Borjärs, Kersti. 2010. Grammaticalization and models of language. In Traugott & Trousdale (eds), 279–299.Google Scholar
Willems, Klaas. 2016. Georg von der Gabelenz and ‘das lautsymbolische gefühl’. A chapter in the history of iconicity research. In From Variation to Iconicity. Festschrift for Olga Fischer, Anne Bannink & Wim Honselaar (eds), 439–452. Amsterdam: Pegasus.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Ungerer, Tobias
2022. Review of Sommerer & Smirnova (2020): Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12:2  pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2020. Reinforcement by realignment in diachronic construction grammar. Constructions and Frames 12:2  pp. 206 ff. DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 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.