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-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T02:09:18.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2023

Elnora ten Wolde
Elnora ten Wolde
Affiliation:
Universität Graz, Austria
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
The English Binominal Noun Phrase
A Cognitive-Functional Approach
 , pp. 286 - 305
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

References

Aarts, B. (1998). English binominal noun phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96, 117–58.Google Scholar
Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Abraham, W. (1998). Ein Schatz von einem Kind: Zur Pradikatsyntax binominaler Nominalkonstituenten. Deutsche Sprache, 26, 337–47.Google Scholar
Adamson, S. (2000). A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., and Stein, D., eds., Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–66.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, A. and Lehrer, A. (1976). NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis, 2(4), 395–413.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., and Stavrou, M. (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. [1972] (1989). Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. and Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29, 554–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, F. O. (1980). A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: Appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies, 61, 357–66.Google Scholar
Bache, C. (2000). Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, N. (2014). Occultus Liber. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. and Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, J, Smirnova, E, Sommerer, L, and Gildea, Spike, eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1998). When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 65–86.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2004). Adjectives, compounds and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J. and Plag, I. (2012). Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 485–520.Google Scholar
Bell, M. J. and Plag, I. (2013). Informativity and analogy in English compound stress. Word Structure, 6(2), 129–55.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. A. (1976). One type of expressive noun phrase in French. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 5(2), 20–1.Google Scholar
Bennis, H., Corver, N., and den Dikken, M. (1998). Predication in nominal phrases. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1, 85–117.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. and Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, J. O. and Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–90.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K. & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–90.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. (2008). Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables? In Stierstorfer, K., ed., Anglistentag 2007 in Münster: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaft Verlag Trier, pp. 269–76.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. (2016). Response to Traugott. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 126–30.Google Scholar
Bisang, W. (1998). Grammaticalization and language contact: Constructions and positions. In Giacalone Ramat, A. and Hopper, P., eds., The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W. (2011). Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Hold & Co.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2008a). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–44.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2008b). Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 17–48.Google Scholar
Boas, , Hans, C. (2021) Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In Wen, X. and Taylor, J. R., eds., Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 43–77.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1967). Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., and Walken, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–82.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. (2002). Adjectives, Number and Interfaces: Why Languages Vary. Amsterdam/Boston/London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boye, K. and Harder, P. (2012). A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
Breban, T. (2010). English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breban, T. and Davidse, K. (2016). A functional-cognitive analysis of the order of adjectival modifiers in the English NP. Paper presented at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) Conference, Konstanz, February 24–26, 2016.Google Scholar
Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2004). Measure noun constructions: Degrees of delexicalization and grammaticalization. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B., eds., Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 249–65.Google Scholar
Brems, L. (2007). The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics, 35, 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2010). Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 83–109.Google Scholar
Brems, L. (2011). Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brems, L. (2012). The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic case study of heap(s) and lot(s). Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(2), 202–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. and Davidse, K. (2010). The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change. English Studies, 91, 180–202.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. (1981). The story of ‘over.’ MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Brugman, C. and Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Small, S. L., Cottrell, G. W., and Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology, and Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 477–508.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, M., Bermudez, N., Fung, V., Edwards, L., and Vargas, R. (2007). Hella nor cal or totally so cal? The perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics, 35, 325–52.Google Scholar
Budts, S. and Petré, P. (2020) Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 318–51.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2008). Interpersonal meaning in the noun phrase. In Rijkhoff, J. and García Velasco, D., eds., The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–62.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. (2009). The lexical constructional model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J., eds., Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 117–52.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-García, F. (2005). Situation FDG in functional–cognitive space: An initial study. In Mackenzie, L. J. and Gómez-González, M., eds., Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 109–58.Google Scholar
Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cali Abokor, A. (1987). The Camel in Somali Oral Traditions. Trans. Axmed Arten Xange. Motala: Motala Grafiska.Google Scholar
Capelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions Special, 1, 1–26.Google Scholar
Cave, D. (2007). Four Trails to Valor: From Ancient Footprints to Modern Battlefields, a Journey of Four Peoples. Santa Fe, NM: Sunstone Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, A. (1991). On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1994). On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.–Y, Rizzi, L., and Zanuttini, R., eds., Paths Towards a Universal Grammar. Georgetown: Georgetown University, pp.85–110.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2010). The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (2014). The semantic classification of adjectives: A view from syntax. Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 35(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Colleman, T. (2011). Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 387–410.Google Scholar
Corver, N. (1998). Predicative movement in pseudo partitive constructions. In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C., eds., Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–58.Google Scholar
Creesy, C. (ed.) (1986). Princeton Alumni Weekly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, September 30.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1914). The development of the analytic genitive in Germanic, Part II. Modern Philology, 11(3), 289–313.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1931). A Grammar of the English Language, Vol. III: Syntax. Boston, MA: Heath and Co.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. (2009). Complete and sort of: From identifying to intensifying? Transactions of the Philological Society, 107(3), 262–92.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. and Breban, T. (2019). A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase. Linguistics, 57(2), 327–71.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Brems, L., and De Smedt, L. (2008). Type noun uses in the English NP: A case of right to left layering. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(2), 139–68.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. and Ghesquière, L. (2016). Content-purport, content-substance and structure: Focusing mere and me rely. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 48(1), 85–109.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). http://corpus.byu.edu/now/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018). iWeb Corpus: 14 Billion Words, 1990–2015. http://corpus.byu.edu/iweb.Google Scholar
De Clerck, B. and Colleman, T. (2013). From noun to intensifier: Massa and massa’s in Flemish varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 36, 147–60.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–55.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. (2003). Universal grammar and semiotic constraints. In Christiansen, M. H. and Kirby, S., eds., Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M. (1998). Predicate inversion in the DP. In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C., eds., Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–58.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2002). History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki. 7 September 2002.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2005). The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of, and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago de Compostela, July 17–20, 2005.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2011). The construction of SKT. Second Vigo-Newcastle-Santiago-Leuven International Workshop on the Structure of the Noun Phrase in English (NP2), Newcastle upon Tyne, September 15–16, 2011.Google Scholar
Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011). Review of Language, Usage and Cognition by Bybee, Joan. Language, 87(4), 830–44.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-Based Construction Grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D., eds., The Cognitive Linguistic Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 296–321.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2011). Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 450–61.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2015). Review of Traugott, Elizabeth Closs; Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 137, 108–21.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Linguistic Series.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997a). The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part I: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd ed., ed. Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997b). The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part II: Complex and Derived Constructions, ed. Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and Beyssade, C. (2012). Redefining Indefinites. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. and Rooryck, J. (2003). Generalizing over quantitative and qualitative constructions. In Coene, M. and D’hulst, Y., eds., From NP to DP: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 277–96.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., and O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evans, V. and Green, M. C. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Wilkins, D. (1998). The Knowing Ear: An Australian Test of Universal Claims about the Semantic Structure of Sensory Verbs and Their Extension into the Domain of Cognition. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. (1992). Nogmaals: “Een schat van een kind.” In Bennis, H. and de Vries, J. W., eds., De binnenbouw van het Nederlands: Een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
Feist, J. (2009). Premodifier order in English nominal phrases: A semantic account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 301–40.Google Scholar
Feist, J. (2012). Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, C. (1993). The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2000). Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, and D. Stein, eds., Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 149–69.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2008). On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 32(2), 336–82.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2011). Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
Foolen, A. (2004). Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. In Radden, G. and Panther, K. U., eds., Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2010). Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change. In Van Linden, A., Davidse, K., and Verstraete, J.–C., eds., Grammaticalization and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.191–224.Google Scholar
Fried, M. and Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–78.Google Scholar
Gallagher, L. (2009). Snowboarding: Learning to Ride from All-Mountain to Park and Pipe. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers Books.Google Scholar
García Velasco, D. (2013). Degree words in English: A Functional Discourse Grammar account. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 67, 79–96.Google Scholar
García Velasco, D. and Hengeveld, K. (2002). Do we need predicate frames? In Mairal, R. and Pérez, Q., eds., New Perspectives on Argument Structure. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 95–123.Google Scholar
Genee, I., Keizer, E., and García Velasco, D. (2016). The lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics, 54(5), 887–906.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. (2009). From determining to emphasizing meanings: The adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica, 43(2), 311–43.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. (2014). The Directionality of (Inter)Subjectification in the English Noun Phrase. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ghesquiere, L. (2017). Intensification and focusing: The case of “pure(ly)” and “mere(ly).” In Napoli, M. and Ravetto, M., eds., Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, L. and Davidse, K. (2011). The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying usages of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 251–77.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A. (1998). Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat, A. and Hopper, P., eds., The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–27.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2004). Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics, 8, 1–24.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2005). Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon–syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics, 41(3), 571–91.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2009). The English compound stress myth. Word Structure, 2(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Giomi, R. (2017). The interaction of components in a Functional Discourse Grammar account of grammaticalization. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 39–74.Google Scholar
Giomi, R. (2020). Shifting structures, contexts and meanings: A Functional Discourse Grammar account of grammaticalization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lisbon.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. and Patten, A. (2011). Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–104.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 210–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2009a). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2009b). Constructions at work. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 201–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. and Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96.Google Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T. and Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In Steen, G. J. and Gibbs, R. W., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar
Grestenberger, L. (2013). Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 18(2), 93–138.Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2009). Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Guisti, G. (1991). The categorical status of quantified nominals. Linguistische Berichte, 136, 439–52.Google Scholar
Guisti, G. (1997). The categorial status of determiners. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
Gunkel, L. and Zifonun, G. (2009). Classifying modifiers in common names. Word Structure, 2(2), 205–18.Google Scholar
Haas, F. (2007). The development of English each other: Grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both? English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harder, P. and Boye, K. (2011). Grammaticalization and functional linguistics. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22, 315–51.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 78(3), 527–55.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1997b). Grammaticalization theory and its relevance to African linguistics. In Herbert, R. K., ed., African Linguistics at the Crossroads: Papers from Kwaluseni. Cologne: Köppe, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In Janda, R. D. and Joseph, B. D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 573–601.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2002). On the evolution of grammatical forms. In Wray, A., ed., The Transition to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 376–97.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (2010). Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 401–23.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (2017). A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 13–38.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2016). Reflections on the lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics, 54(5), 1135–61.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H. (2017). A functional perspective on the grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. (1978). On the relative order of adjectives. In Seiler, H., ed., Language Universals: Papers from the Conference Held at Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, October 3–8, 1976. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 165–84.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Andersson, P. & Coussé, E., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2021). Lecture 3: Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., and Wiemer, B., eds., What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2004). Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuition. In Lindquist, H. and Mair, C., eds., Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–210.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar introduction. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Honselaar, W. and Olbertz, H. (2016). The use of moeten without an infinitive: A case of degrammaticalization?. In Bannink, A. and Honselaar, W., eds., From Variation to Iconicity: Festschrift for Olga Fischer on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Pegasus, pp. 185–201.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. [1993] (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (2008). Word grammar and Construction Grammar. In Trousdale, G. and Gisborne, N., eds., Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–302.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (2017). Pied-piping in cognition. Journal of Linguistics. Online ed. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics/article/piedpiping-in-cognition-1/FAFC2CCF34F7DE3B4C2B797498C6096D (June 19, 2017).Google Scholar
Iannuzzi, J. N. (2008). Condemned. Xlibris.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, B. and Chalkley, T. (2021). A History Lover’s Guide to Baltimore. Charleston, SC: The History Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1992). An on-line computation model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and the use of linguistic knowledge. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. and Partee, B. (1995). Prototype Theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 212–191.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(1), 59–111.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2004). Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinction. English Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 323–50.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2005). What to do with those fools of a crew? In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemskijk. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 300–9.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2007a). The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2007b). The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. ALFA: Revista de Linguística, 51(2), 35–56.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2011). English preforms: An alternative account. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 303–34.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2015). A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2016). Idiomatic expressions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics, 54(5), 981–1016.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2017). English partitives in Functional Discourse Grammar: Types and constraints. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. (2020). Noun phrases. In Aarts, B., Bowie, J., and Popova, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–57.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. and ten Wolde, E. (forthcoming). Of birds of prey and men of honour: head-classifier constructions in English. In L. Gardelle, E. Mignot, and J. Neveux, eds., Nouns and the Morphosyntax/Semantics Interface. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. and Van Staden, M. (2009). Introduction. Linguistics, 47(4), 799–824.Google Scholar
Kendall, B. J. et al. (1880). A Treatise on the Horse and His Diseases. Claremont, NH: Claremont Manufacturing Co.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–81.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B. and Sells, P. (2015). English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 51, 41–73.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, D. and Whitman, J., eds., Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–52.Google Scholar
Knopp, L. (2012). What the River Carries: Encounters with the Mississippi, Missouri, and Platte. Columbia/London: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
König, E. (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 291–325.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. (1932). A Handbook of Present-Day English Part II: English Accidence and Syntax 2, 5th ed. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, C. (2005). French adjective ordering: Perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua, 115, 645–89.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Imagine, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd ed. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2010). A lot of quantifiers. In Rice, S. and Newman, J., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1999). Semantics of adjectival modification. Lectures presented at the Dutch National Graduate School (LOT), Amsterdam. http://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/~rlarson/LOT(99)/Contents.htmld/index.html (June 19, 2017).Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. [1982] (2002). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2020). Univerbation. Folia Linguistica Historica, 41, 205–52.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1986). English classifier constructions. Lingua, 68(2–3), 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leys, O. (1997). ‘Ein Engel von (einer) Frau’. Emtionalität als konstruktionale Bedeutung. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86, 27–52.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. and Sproat, R. (1992). The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Sag, I. A. and Szabolcsi, A., eds., Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 131–82.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2011). Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–49.Google Scholar
Löbel, E. (1989). Q as a functional category. In Schmidt, C., E. Löbe,l and Bhatt, C., eds., Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–58.Google Scholar
Löbel, E. (2001). Classifiers and semi-lexicality: Functional and semantic selection. In Corver, N. and Riemsdijk, H., eds., Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–71.Google Scholar
Lorenz, G. (2002). Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in modern English. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143–61.Google Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (1993). Prepositions in Old and Middle English: A Study of Prepositional Syntax and the Semantics of At, In and On in some Old and Middle English Texts. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maiorana, S. and Pitoniak, S. (2005). Slices of Orange: Great Games and Performers in Syracuse University Sports History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Margerie, H. (2011). Grammaticalising constructions: To death as a peripheral degree modifier. Folia Linguistica Historica, 45(32), 115–47.Google Scholar
Masini, F. (2016). Binominal constructions in Italian of the N1-di-N2 type: Towards a typology of Light Noun Constructions. Language Sciences, 53, 99–113.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (2014). The Positions of Adjectives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1987). A case of syntactic mimicry. In Dirven, R. and Fried, V., eds., Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 459–70.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1988). The Syntactic Phenomena of English. 2 vols. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, W. B. (1997). Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2010). Sign-based Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–58.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In Boas, H. C. and Sag, I., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 31–67.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar
Mortley, R. (1973). The theme of silence in Clement of Alexandria. Journal of Theological Studies, 24(1), 197–202.Google Scholar
Morzycki, M. (2016). Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (2016). A Middle English Syntax: Parts of Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication Theory: A Case Study for Indexing Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (1991). But, Only, Just: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Noёl, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M., De Clerck, B. and Colleman, T. (2014). The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., and Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 207–50.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2011). Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind: A cognitive-functional perspective. In Brdar, M., Gries, S. Th., and Fuchs, M., eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
Olbertz, H. (2016). Lexical auxiliaries in Spanish: How and why? Linguistics, 54(5), 947–79.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. (2000). Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte, 181, 55–69.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C. (1956). Een schat van een kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 49, 93–9.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1997). Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2000). Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In Bermúdez, R., Denison, D., Hogg, R., and McCully, C., eds., Generative Theory and Corpus Studies, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 233–58.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 47–65.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–43.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (2010). Privative adjectives: subsective plus coercion. In Bäuerle, R., Reyle, U., and Zimmermann, T. E., eds., Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp. Cambridge, MA: Emerald Group, pp. 273–85.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (1993). Corpus evidence of language change: The case of the intensifier. In Baker, M., Tognini-Bonelli, F., and Tognini-Bonelli, E., eds., Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–92.Google Scholar
Payne, J. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Noun and noun phrases. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–524.Google Scholar
Payne, J., Pullum, G. K., Scholz, B. C., and Berlage, E. (2013). Anaphoric one and its implications. Language, 89(4), 794–829.Google Scholar
Pérez Quintero, M. J. (2013). Grammaticalization vs lexicalization: The Functional Discourse Grammar view. Estudios Inglese, 67, 97–122.Google Scholar
Pins, R. (2018). How to Kill an Elephant: Eighteen Months to Save the Planet. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics, 10(1), 143–72.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2010). Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 29(2), 243–82.Google Scholar
Plag, I., Kunter, G., and Lappe, S. (2007). Testing hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based investigation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 199–232.Google Scholar
Plag, I., Kunter, G., Lappe, S., and Braun, M. (2008). The roles of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language, 84(4), 760–94.Google Scholar
Portero Muñoz, C. (2013). Adjective-Noun sequences at the crossroads between morphology and syntax: An FDG perspective. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 67, 123–40.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995) The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. and Stavrou, M. (1998). Morphology–syntax interface: A–N compounds vs A–N constructs in Modern Greek. In Booij, G. and Van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 243–64.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. (2002). The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2014). English genitive Variation: The state of the art. Genitive Variation in English, 18(2), 215–62.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2011). Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6, 1–42.Google Scholar
Ruiz De Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and Mairal Usón, R. (2006). Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17, 26–47.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2001). Dimensions of natural language locality. Unpublished paper presented at the Eight Annual Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. and Sag, I., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 69–202.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schlücker, B. and Plag, I. (2011). Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, 121(9), 1539–51.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, C. J. (2011). Culture, rap music, “bitch,” and the development of the censorship frame. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(1), 36–56.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Degen, J., and Goodman, N. D. (2017). Subjectivity predicts adjective ordering preferences. Open Mind, 1(1), 53–66.Google Scholar
Scott, G. J. (1998). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 8, 59–89.Google Scholar
Scott, G. J. (2002). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In Cinque, G., ed., Functional Structure in DP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–120.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. (1978). Determination: A functional dimension for interlanguage comparison. In Seiler, H., ed., Language Universals: Papers from the Conference Held at Gummersbach/ Cologne,German, October 3–8, 1976. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 301–28.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1977). Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 285–316.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumpertz, J. J. and Levinson, S., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. and Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the noted and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English: A constructionalist approach. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2020). Why we avoid the “Multiple Inheritance” issue in usage-based Cognitive Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 320–31.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. and Shih, C. (1988). Prenominal adjective ordering in English and Mandarin. In Belvins, J. and Carter, J., eds., Proceedings of NELS 18. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, pp. 465–89.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. and Shih, C. (1991). The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R., eds., Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 565–93.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2011). Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar. In Steels, L., ed., Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J. R. and MacWhinney, B. (1988). Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M., eds., Theoretical Morphology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–16.Google Scholar
Stirling, L. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Deixis and anaphora. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1449–564.Google Scholar
Sweester, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tayler, A. and Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2004). The ecology of constructions. In Radden, G. and Panther, K.–U., eds., Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 49–73.Google Scholar
Ten Wolde, E. (2019). Linear vs. hierarchical: Two accounts of premodification in the of-binominal noun phrase. Linguistics, 57(2), 283–326.Google Scholar
Ten Wolde, E. and Keizer, E. (2016). Structure and substance in Functional Discourse Grammar: The case of the binominal noun phrase. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 48(1), 134–57.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., and Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 173–212.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. (2000). The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Wright, S. M. and Stein, D., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. and Janda, R., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 624–47.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2006). The semantic development of scalar focus modifier. In Kemenade, A. and Bettelou, L., eds., The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 335–59.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–57.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008a). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 23–45.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008b). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Eckardt, R., Jäger, G., and Veenstra, T., eds., Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2011). Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2015). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., and Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–40.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2016). Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 98–125.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2018). Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Pons Bordería, S. and Loureda Lamas, O., eds., New Insights into the Grammaticalization of Discourse Markers. Leiden: Brill, pp. 17–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2012). Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., and Mortelmans, T., eds., Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–94.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies of Language, 37(3), 491–514.Google Scholar
Trueswell, R. (2009). Attributive adjectives and nominal templates. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 525–33.Google Scholar
Van Caspel, P. P. J. (1970). Een schat van een (niet meer zo jong) kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 63, 280–87.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2007). Interpersonal modification in the English noun phrase. Functions of Language, 14, 203–30.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2009). The emergence of modification patterns in the Dutch noun phrase. Linguistics, 47(4), 1021–49.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., and Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 141–80.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. (2002). More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J., Van Olmen, D., and Du Mon, D. (2015). Grammaticalization. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 634–50.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K. and De Smet, H. (2014). How nouns turn into adjectives: The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 189–214.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The edocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, 1–48.Google Scholar
Van ValinJr., R. (2005). Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valin Jr, Van., R. and LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Villalba, X. and Bartra-Kaufmann, A. (2010). Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish determiner phrase. Lingua, 120(4), 819–49.Google Scholar
Von Eye, A. (2002). Configural Frequency Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vos, R. (1999). A grammar of partitive constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Vuillaume, M., Marillier, J. F., and Behr, I. (1993). Dieser Schuft von einem Hausmeister. Überlegungen zu den morphosyntaktischen und semantischen Eigenschaften von Strukturen nach dem Muster “N-von-N.” In Vuillaullle, M., Marillier, J. F., and Behr, I., eds., Studien zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalgruppe. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 167–84.Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. and Traugott, E.C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–212.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 1–29.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (2004–5) A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER 2). CQPweb Main Page (lancs.ac.uk)Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–2015 (COCA). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/now/. Davies, M. (2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2017). Early English Books Online (EEBO). Part of the SAMUELS project. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018). iWeb Corpus: 14 Billion Words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/iweb.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. (2000). Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., and Delfs, L. (2004). Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2015. Web. Accessed April–May 2017.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (2004–5) A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER 2). CQPweb Main Page (lancs.ac.uk)Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–2015 (COCA). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2010–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/now/. Davies, M. (2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2017). Early English Books Online (EEBO). Part of the SAMUELS project. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018). iWeb Corpus: 14 Billion Words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/iweb.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. (2000). Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., and Delfs, L. (2004). Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2015. Web. Accessed April–May 2017.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
  • Elnora ten Wolde, Universität Graz, Austria
  • Book: The English Binominal Noun Phrase
  • Online publication: 29 June 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921893.011
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
  • Elnora ten Wolde, Universität Graz, Austria
  • Book: The English Binominal Noun Phrase
  • Online publication: 29 June 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921893.011
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
  • Elnora ten Wolde, Universität Graz, Austria
  • Book: The English Binominal Noun Phrase
  • Online publication: 29 June 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108921893.011
Available formats
×