Part of
Reconnecting Form and Meaning: In honour of Kristin Davidse
Edited by Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière, William B. McGregor and An Van linden
[Studies in Language Companion Series 230] 2023
► pp. 123144
Anthonissen, Lynn
2020Cognition in construction grammar. Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 309–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Gildea, Spike
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike
(eds) 2015Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael
2013Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander
2005Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503) [Topics in English Linguistics 51]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Noël, Dirk
2012The Dutch evidential NCI. A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13(1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
2015Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 650–667. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 12]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 213–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2016How gradual change progresses. The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 251–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Disney, Steve
2016Another visit to be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English Studies 97(8): 892–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, Levshina, Natalia & Klavan, Jane
2016Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 447–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2012Cognitive linguistics. WIREs Cognitive Science 3(2): 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2010Recontextualizing grammar. Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 14], Elżbieta Tabakowska, Michał Choiński & Łukasz Wiraszka (eds), 71–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2003Constructions. A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 21], Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds), 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 [2014]Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd edn. [Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language – Advanced]. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
2021Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 26]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara
1996The Linguistic Individual. Self-expression in Language and Linguistics [Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2000The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 405–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel
1992An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In AAAI-92 Proceedings, San Jose, California, 302–308. Cambridge MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael
2000A usage-based conception of language. [LAUD Paper No. 295]. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Breban, Tine
(eds) 2021Lost in Change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions [ Studies in Language Companion Series 218 ]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1994Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1988A usage-based model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50], Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed), 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology [Cognitive Linguistics Research 15], Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds), 13–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2013Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality [Topics in English Linguistics 81], Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero Lapeyre, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 95–115. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley
1985Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John
1995Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33(2): 157–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Mannila, Heikki
2011The diffusion of language change in real time. Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change 23(1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2008The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English. A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4): 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30: 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199: 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Under review. Culture in a radically usage-based model of language change, with special reference to constructional attrition.
Noël, Dirk & Colleman, Timothy
2021Diachronic construction grammar. In The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Wen Xu & John R. Taylor (eds), 662–675. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter & Anthonissen, Lynn
2020Individuality in complex systems. A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek
2018The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94(4): 867–901. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena
2009Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen. In The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800), Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds), 165–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnicka, Karolina
2019The Statistics of Obsolescence. Purpose Subordinators in Late Modern English. Strasbourg/Basel/Freiburg: EUCOR – The European Campus/Universität Basel/University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian
2005Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. 2, Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds), 1002–1013. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2015A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Mantlik, Annette
2015Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia 133(4): 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte
2020Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death. Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In Nodes and Networks: Advances in Diachronic Construction Grammar [ Constructional Approaches to Language 27 ], Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 70–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonti, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra
2007Frequency and variation in the community grammar. Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19(2): 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2015Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 51–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022aTen Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 27]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022bDiscourse Structuring Markers in English. A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics [Constructional Approaches to Language 33]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans & Sankoff, Gillian
2011Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change 23(3): 275–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2006English. Meaning and Culture. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar