Review published in:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 317333
References

References

Aarts, B.
(2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E., & Popova, G.
(Eds.) (2004) Fuzzy grammar: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. Closs
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E.
(2014) Lexical expansion in the have and be perfect in Dutch. A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica, 31(2), 159–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 332 ]
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2008) Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics, 12, 55–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 119(11), 1728–1755. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The course of actualization. Language, 88(3), 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., & Van de Velde, F.
(2013) Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language, 37(3), 534–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, B. M.
(2016) Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. [Language learning monograph series, Vol. 66]. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, O.
(2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L.
(2016) From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology. Functions of Language, 23(1), 82–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(1997) Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gildea, S.
(Ed.) (2000) Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heyvaert, L.
(2003) A cognitive-functional approach to deverbal nominalization in English. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and fringes (pp. 21–42). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hoecksema, J.
(2012) Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In G. Ooebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich (pp. 97–142). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. Closs
(2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P.
(2014) Between adjective and noun: Category/function mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. In R. Simone & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology, and representations (pp. 203–226). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1995) [1982]Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C.
(2013) Bekje-af, knettertjegek en dolletjesgelukkig: The use and development of intensifying diminuitive compounds in Dutch within the framework of Constructional Morphology. MA thesis, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
[ p. 333 ]
Norde, M.
(2014) On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Coglingdays 2014, Ghent University. Retrieved from https://​www​.academia​.edu​/9873697​/On​_parents​_and​_peers​_in​_constructional​_networks
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K.
(2015) Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: Degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P.
(2013) LEON: Leuven English Old to New , Version 0.3.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 573–605.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L.
(2018) Article emergence in Old English. A constructionalist perspective. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1995) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
(2010) Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M.
(2013) Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Verveckken, K.
(2015) Binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar