Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:03:31.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2019

Thomas Hoffmann
Thomas Hoffmann
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
English Comparative Correlatives
Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface
 , pp. 239 - 256
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abeillé, Anne and Borsley, Robert D.. 2008. Comparative correlatives and parameters. Lingua 118: 1139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D. and Espinal, Maria-Teresa. 2006. The syntax of comparative correlatives in French and Spanish. In: Müller, Stefan, ed. Proceedings of the HPSG06 Conference. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 6–26. https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2006/abe.pdf. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1977. Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In: Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., eds. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 435–40.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Stefan, Pfänder. 2011. Constructions: Emergent or emerging. In: Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan, eds. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. (De Gruyter linguae & litterae / Publications of the School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies 6.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babington, Churchill, ed. 1860. The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy by Reginald Recock, D.D., sometime Lord Bishop of Chichester. Vol 1. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/AHB1325.0001.001. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul and Huber, Magnus. 2000. Constructing new pronominal systems from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In: Arends, J. (ed.), Creoles, Pidgins, and Sundry Languages: Essays in Honor of Pieter Seuren, special issue of Linguistics 38(5): 833–66.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. (Constructional Approaches to Language 8.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21(1): 619–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds. 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bates, Elisabeth and Brian, MacWhinney. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In: Bates, Elisabeth and MacWhinney, Brian, eds. The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–73.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(3): 229−71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. 2013. Psycholinguistics. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 379–96.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 640–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. and Valian, Virginia. 2008. Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. and Chang, Nancy. 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In: Östman, Jan-Ola and Fried, Mirjam, eds. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 147–90.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. and Chang, Nancy. 2013. Embodied construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 168–90.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2017. Diachronic approaches. In: Dancygier, Barbara, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 359–75.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. Introduction: Cognitive approaches to the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 21(2): 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Pentrel, Meike. 2014. Ælc þara þe þas min word gehierþ and þa wyrcþ …: Psycholinguistic perspectives on early English. In: Michael Adams, R.D. Fulk and Brinton, Laurel J., eds. Studies in the History of the English Language VI: Evidence and Method in Histories of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 249–76.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7(2): 173–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 2008. Bastard Tongues: A Trailblazing Linguist Finds Clues to our Common Humanity in the World’s Lowliest Languages. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Biermeier, Thomas. 2014. Compounding and suffixation in World Englishes. In: Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes The Dynamic Model and Beyond. (Varieties of English around the World G49.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 312–30.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2017. Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In: Schmid, Hans-Jörg, ed. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 128–52.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language 81(2): 448–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C., ed. 2010. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. (Constructional Approaches to Language 10.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2011. Zum Abstraktionsgrad von Resultativkonstruktionen. In: Engelberg, S., Proost, K. and Holler, A., eds. Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 233–52.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. and Sag, Ivan, eds. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5: 341–5.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul and Weenink, David. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 5.0.08. www.praat.org. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2003. On the Polish periphery: Comparative correlatives in Polish. In: Bański, P. and Przepiórkowski, A., eds. GLIP-5: Proceedings of Fifth Generative Linguistics in Poland Conference. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Science, 15–28.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2004a. An approach to English comparative correlatives. In: Müller, Stephan, ed. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 70−92.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2004b. On the periphery: Comparative correlatives in Polish and English. Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12: 59–90.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2011. Constructions, functional heads, and comparative correlatives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8: 7–20. www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/index_en.html. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Bortz, Jürgen, Lienert, Gustav A. and Boehnke, Klaus. 1990. Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik. Berlin et al: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Comparative and equative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. Poster presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18 (University of Massachusetts Amherst) and at the 9th Semfest, Stanford.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86: 186–213.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Patricia and Tomasello, Michael. 1999a. Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35: 29–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, Patricia and Tomasello, Michael. 1999b. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75: 720–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Patricia, Tomasello, Michael, Dodson, Kelly and Lewis, Lawrence B.. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70: 1325–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander. 2014. The evolution of Englishes: The dynamic model and beyond. In: Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes. (Varieties of English around the World G49.) Amsterdam/New York: Benjamins, 1–17.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study into the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In: Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., eds. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–69.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2011. The the … the … construction: Meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert, Shtyrov, Yury and Friedemann, Pulvermüller. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115(3): 189–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Franklin. 2002. Symbolically speaking: A connectionist model of sentence production. Cognitive Science 26: 609–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Kathryn Bock, J. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90: 29–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary S., Kathryn Bock, J. and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 217–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. In: Culicover, Peter, Thomas Wasow and Akmajian, Adrian, eds. Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. (Studies in Generative Grammar 9) Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publication.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: Martin, Roger, Michaels, David and Uriagereka, Juan, eds. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In: Kenstowicz, Michael, ed. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 1987. The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In: MacWhinney, Brian, ed. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–33.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2009. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Allan M. and Loftus, Elizabeth F.. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82: 407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2013. Radical construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 211–32.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Alan D.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2003. English as a Global Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543−71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva. 2000. From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva and Lieven, Elena. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva, Rowland, Caroline and Theakston, Anna. 2009. The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 571–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 159–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 62.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York/London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3): 601–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 497−532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2009. Comparative correlatives and successive cyclicity. In: Lipták, Anikó Klára, ed. Correlatives Cross-linguistically. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 263–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43(3): 449–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2009. On the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of subject and non-subject relative clauses. In: Givón, Talmy and Shibatani, Masayoshi, eds. Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 251–76.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347–64.Google Scholar
Dominey, Peter and Hoen, Michael. 2006. Structure mapping and semantic integration in a construction-based neurolinguistic model of sentence processing. Cortex 42: 476–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dooley, Sheila. 2014. The Swedish comparative correlative construction: Ju … desto … and variations. Constructions 1–4/201. www.constructions.uni-osnabrueck.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014_4_Dooley.pdf. Last accessed 7 Dec. 2018.Google Scholar
Bois, Du, John, W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A., Englebretson, Robert and Martey, Nii. 2000–2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2003. Constructions, chunking and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In: Doughty, Catherine and Long, Michael H., eds. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative cognitive CREED. AILA Review 19: 100–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2013. Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 365–78.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan and Green., Melanie 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 32: 429–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, John. 2004. Psycholinguistics. The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1987. Varieties of conditional sentences. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 3: 163–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 35–55.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2013. Berkeley construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 111–32.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Kay, Paul. 1993. Construction Grammar Coursebook. Ms. University of California at Berkeley Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Kay, Paul. 1995. Construction Grammar. Ms. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, Michaelis, Laura and Sag, Ivan. 2007. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–38.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In: Blake, N., ed. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2010. An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In: Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke and König, Ekkehard, eds. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem and Wim, van der Wurff. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. and Michaelis, Laura A., eds. 2003. Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson and Henry, Kučera. 1979. BROWN corpus manual: Manual of information to accompany A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers. Revised and Amplified version. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/BROWN/INDEX.HTM. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Franck, Dorothea. 1985. Sentences in conversational turns: A case of syntactic ‘double bind’. In: Dascal, Marcelo, ed. Dialogue. An Interdisciplinary Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–45.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2008. Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In: Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele, eds. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 47–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419–37.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas and Patten, Amanda. 2012. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199586783-e-8. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In: Haiman, John, ed. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1994. Einführung in die englische Sprachgeschichte. 3rd edn. Heidelberg, Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2004a. HCFA 3.2 – A Program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis for R for Windows. www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/contact.html (Program available on request). Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2004b. Coll.analysis 3. A Program for R for Windows 2.x. www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen/index.html. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Statistik für Sprachwissenschaftler. (Studienbuch zur Linguistik 13). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Data in construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 93–108.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate and Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 635–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate and Schö, Doris. 2010. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In: Rice, Sally and Newman, John, eds. Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 59–72.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Wulff, Stefanie. 2009. Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 163–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language 56: 515–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Iconicity. In: Asher, R.E., ed. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1629–33.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22: 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In: Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry, eds. Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasson, Uri and Small, Steven L.. 2008. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) Research of Language. In: Stemmer, Brigitte and Whitaker, Harry A., eds. Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language. London: Elsevier, 81–9.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75: 245–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 307–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014. The cognitive evolution of Englishes: The role of constructions in the Dynamic Model. In: Buschfeld, Sarah, Hoffmann, Thomas, Huber, Magnus and Kautzsch, Alexander, eds. The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond. (Varieties of English around the World G49.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 160–80.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2015. Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3): 273–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017a. From constructions to construction grammar. In: Dancygier, Barbara, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 284–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017b. Construction grammars. In: Dancygier, Barbara, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 310–29.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017c. Construction grammar as cognitive structuralism: The interaction of constructional networks and processing in the diachronic evolution of English Comparative Correlatives. English Language and Linguistics 21(2): 349–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme. 2011. Variation, change and constructions in English. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem. 2013. Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491–509.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In: Auer, Peter and Pfänder, Stefan, eds. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. (De Gruyter linguae & litterae/Publications of the School of Language and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies 6.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Su-ying. 2003. On proportional correlative constructions in Chinese and Mongolian. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature 1: 239–67.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In: Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Nurmi, Arja, eds. Annotating Variation and Change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1). www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huber/. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Comparative constructions. In: Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K., eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1097–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2007 Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson-Ettle, D. M. and Schmied, J.. 1999. Manual to accompany the East African Component of the International Corpus of English. Ms. Chemnitz University of Technology.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea and Skandera, Paul. 1999. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg – Brown Corpus of American English (‘Frown’). Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/FROWN/INDEX.HTM. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea and Siemund, Rainer. 1998. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg – LOB Corpus of British English (‘FLOB’). Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/FLOB/INDEX.HTM. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea and Siemund, RainerICE-GB CD-ROM Release 2. 2006. London: Survey of English Usage, Department of English, University of London.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Eiichi and Radford, Andrew. 2009. Comparative correlatives in English: A minimalist-cartographic analysis. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 57(6).Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Account. (Constructional Approaches to Language 6.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. London: George Allen and Unwin/Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey N. and Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Manual information to accompany the LANCASTER-OSLO/BERGEN CORPUS of British English, for use with digital computers. Oslo: University of Oslo. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/LOB/INDEX.HTM. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In: American Association for Artificial Intelligence, eds. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 302–8.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B., ed. 1992. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. 2nd edn. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kemmler, Fritz and Rieker, Iryna. 2012. Medieval English: Literature and Language. 5th edn. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2011. English comparative correlative construction: Interactions between lexicon and constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 307–36.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2012. Grammaticalization as optimization. In: Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John and Garrett, Andrew, eds. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 15–51.Google Scholar
Konopka, Agnieszka E. and Bock, Kathryn. 2008. Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology 58: 68–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. 2011. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. [eWAVE]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https.//ewave-atlas.org. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend, Schneider, Edgar W. and Upton, Clive, eds. 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1973. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In: Ruiz, Francisco J. de Ibáñez, Mendoza and Sandra Peña, M. Cervel, eds. Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 101–59.Google Scholar
Lange, Matthew K. 2004. British Colonial Legacies and Political Development. World Development 32(6): 905–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, R. and Tabouret-Keller, A.. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geoffrey, Leech and Smith, Nicholas. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992: Some preliminary findings of a comparison of American with British English. In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew, eds. The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 185–204.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire. 2004. Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages. (Studies in Language Companion Series 70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1992. Word order change by grammaticalization. In: Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter, eds. Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 61.) Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, Lehmann. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. In: Diewald, Gabriele, ed. Grammatikalisierung. Special issue of Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32: 152–87.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernest and Ludwig, Kirk. 2008. Donald Davidson’s Truth-Theoretic Semantics. (Oxford Scholarship Online). Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290932.001.0001/acprof-9780199290932. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2007. On the semantics of comparative correlatives in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Semantics 24(2): 169–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William. 2006. Morphology and language processing. In: Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 175–84.Google Scholar
Martinet, Andre. 1952. Function, structure and sound change. Word 8: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, Andre. 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques. Bern: A. Francke.Google Scholar
Mattys, Sven. 2006. Speech Recognition: Psychological approaches. In: Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 819–28.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. The comparative conditional construction in English, German, and Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 176−87.Google Scholar
McDonough, Kim. 2006. Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28: 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, Kim and Mackey, Alison. 2006. Responses to recasts: Repetitions, primed production and linguistic development. Language Learning 56: 693–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, Kim and Trofimovich, Pavel. 2008. Using Priming Methods in Second Language Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony and Wilson, Andrew. 1996. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Bhatt, Rakesh M.. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 1994. A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language 18: 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. Sign-based construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 133–52.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. Vol. 2: Subordination, Independent Elements and Element Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Brian C. J. and Glasberg, Brian R.. 1996. A revision of Zwicker’s loudness model. Acta Acustica 82: 335–45.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2012. Early Modern English: Literary language. In: Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel, eds. Historical Linguistics of English (HSK 34.1). Berlin: De Gruyter, 791–807.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. 2004. Language birth and death. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35: 157–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30(1): 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2010. Grammatikteorie. (Stauffenburg Einführungen 20.) Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean and Aarts, Bas. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Francis. 2003. Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: 771–4.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 2012. 4 Periods: Early Modern English. In: Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel, eds. Historical Linguistics of English (HSK 34.1). Berlin: De Gruyter, 48–63.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Joseph Desmond and Arnold, Gordon Frederick. 1973. The Intonation of Colloquial English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Brauße, Ursula, Breindl, Eva and Waßner, Ulrich Hermann. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln). (Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 9.) Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Roy D. 1976. Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59: 640–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, Pamela, Thompson, Robin L. and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1: 227. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153832/. Last accessed 6 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, Pamela and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2014. The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25092668. Last accessed 7 Dec. 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, Wolfgang et al. 2005. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 5th edn. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin and Barry, Guy. 1991. Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 229–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl. 1996. The nature of constraint-based grammar. Proceedings of PACLIC Conference, reprinted in Constructions: An HPSG Perspective, ESSLLI 98. isli.khu.ac.kr/journal/content/data/15/1.pdf. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Scholz, Barbara C.. 2001. On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In: de Groote, Philippe, Morrill, Glyn and Retor, Christian, eds. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th International Conference. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, No. 2099). Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer Verlag, 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 1993. On connecting syntax and the brain. In: Aertsen, Ad, ed. Brain Theory: Spatio-Temporal Aspects of Brain Function. New York: Elsevier, 131–45.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2003. The Neuroscience of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2010. Brain embodiment of syntax and grammar: Discrete combinatorial mechanisms spelt out in neuronal circuits. Brain and Language 112(3): 167–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, Friedemann and Knoblauch, Andreas. 2009. Discrete combinatorial circuits emerging in neural networks: A mechanism for rules of grammar in the human brain? Neural Networks 22(2): 161–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Shtyrov, Yury and Cappelle, Bert. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 397–416.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Reetz, Henning. 2003. Analyse und Synthese von Sprachlauten. In: Rickheit, Gert, Herrmann, Theo and Deutsch, Werner, eds. Handbuch für Psycholinguistik. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft HSK 24). Berlin: De Gruyter, 202–12.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In: Lass, Roger, ed. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–331.Google Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian, Sprouse, Rex and Wermter, Joachim. 2002. The difference between desto and umso: Some mysteries of the German comparative correlative. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 7: 15–25.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F. 2007. Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition 104: 106–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, Caroline F. and Pine, Julian M.. 2000. Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: What children do know? Journal of Child Language 27: 157–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L. and the PDP research group. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2011. Adjectival passives and the structure of VP in Tagalog. Lingua 121(8): 1424–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English Filler-gap Constructions. Language 86(3): 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez López, C. 2005. Correlaciones comparativas en español. Acta del Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Coreana de Hispanistas. Seoul, 138–45.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de (2006 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics. Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert, eds. Trans. Harris, Roy. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Otanes, Fe T.. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79(2): 233–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2011. English around the World. (Cambridge Introductions to the English Language.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2004. WordSmith Tools Version 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1992. Constraint-Based Grammar Formalisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Small, George W. 1929. The Germanic Case of Comparison, with a Special Study of English. (Language Monographs 4). Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc, ed. 2011. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2013. Fluid construction grammar. In: Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 152–67.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Flach, Susanne. 2017. The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In: Schmid, Hans-Jörg, ed. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Berlin: De Gruyter, 101–27.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2010. Focus Particles in German: Syntax, Prosody, and Information Structure. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 151.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In: Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte and Peirsman, Yves, eds. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 141–66.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd. 2009. Between simplification and complexification: Nonstandard varieties of English around the world. In: Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David and Trudgill, Peter, eds. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Heather. 2006. Out on Good Syntactic Behaviour. Manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Taylor, Heather. 2013. Grammar Deconstructed: Constructions and the Curious Case of the Comparative Correlative. PhD thesis, University of Maryland. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/14114. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thusat, Joshua, Anderson, Emily, Davis, Shante, Ferris, Mike, Javed, Amber, Laughlin, Angela, McFarland, Christopher, Sangsiri, Raknakwan, Sinclair, Judith, Vastalo, Victoria, Whelan, Win and Wrubel, Jessica. 2009. Maltese English and the nativization phase of the dynamic model. English Today 25(2): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition: An Essay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Construction grammar for kids. Constructions 2006(1).Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael and Brooks, Patricia. 1998. Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In: Hogg, Richard, ed. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1: Old English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 168–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4): 523–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008a. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In: Eckardt, Regine, Jäger, Gerhard and Veenstra, Tonjes, eds. Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 219–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008b. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In: Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele, eds. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008a. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English Impersonal Construction. In: Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Minkova, Donka, eds. Studies in the History of the English Language. Vol. 4: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study Of English Language Change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 301–26.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008b. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in the history of English. In: Trousdale, Graeme and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. (Topics in English Linguistics 57). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. In: Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler and Ekkehard König, eds. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. (Studies in Language Companion Series 119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In: Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte and Mortelmans, Tanja, eds. Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. (Studies in Language Companion Series 130). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167–98.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich and Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2013. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Rethinking the loss of verb-second. In: Nevalainen, Tertu and Closs-Traugott, Elizabeth, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford, New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 822–34. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199922765. Last accessed 8 Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
Van Kemenade, Ans and Westergaard, Marit. 2012. Syntax and information structure: verb second variation in Middle English. In: Meurman-Solin, Anneli, Maria Lopez-Couso, Jose and Los, Bettelou, eds. Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. (Oxford Studies in the History of English 1). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, Bertus. 2010. Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardlow Lane, Liane and Ferreira, Victor S.. 2010. Abstract syntax in sentence production: Evidence from stem-exchange errors. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C. 2006. English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weston, Daniel. 2011. Gibraltar’s position in the Dynamic Model of postcolonial English. English World-Wide 32: 338–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4: 253–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 2010. Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In: Winters, Margaret E., Tissari, Hele and Kathryn, Allan, eds. Historical Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Ellis, Nick C., Römer, Ute, Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Chelsea, LeBlanc. 2009. The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora, cognition and learner constructions. Modern Language Journal 93: 354–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger and Strecker, Bruno, eds. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Band 3. (Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache 7.) Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Thomas Hoffmann
  • Book: English Comparative Correlatives
  • Online publication: 01 May 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569859.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Thomas Hoffmann
  • Book: English Comparative Correlatives
  • Online publication: 01 May 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569859.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Thomas Hoffmann
  • Book: English Comparative Correlatives
  • Online publication: 01 May 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569859.008
Available formats
×