Chapter published in:
Changing Structures: Studies in constructions and complementation
Edited by Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund and Paul Rickman
[Studies in Language Companion Series 195] 2018
► pp. 5568
References

References

Boas, Hans C.
2003A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2010Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Coercion and leaking argument structures in Construction Grammar. Linguistics 49(6): 1271–1303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 89–112.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard
2002Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. OUP: Oxford.Google Scholar
2014Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 113–135.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael
1996The way constructions grow. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), 217–230. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2014Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Wechsler, Stephen
2014Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 1–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2007Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14: 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rostila, Jouni
2005Zur Grammatikalisierung bei Präpositionalobjekten. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds), 135–166. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Construction Grammar as a functionalist generative grammar. In At the Crossroads of Linguistics Sciences, Piotr P. Chruszczewski, Michał Garcarz & Tomasz P. Górski (eds), 365–376. Cracow: Tertium.Google Scholar
2007Konstruktionsansätze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. PhD dissertation, University of Tampere. http://​urn​.fi​/urn:isbn:978​-951​-44​-7085​-1Google Scholar
2014Inventarisierung als Grammatikalisierung: Produktive Präpositionalobjekte und andere grammatikalisierte Linking-Muster. In Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus in der Konstruktionsgrammatik, Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds), 127–153. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Inside out: Productive German prepositional objects as an example of complements selecting heads. In Perspectives on Complementation. Structure, Variation and Boundaries, Mikko Höglund, Paul Rickman, Juhani Rudanko & Jukka Havu (eds), 34–51. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
2016Zur Integration von Argumentstrukturkonstruktionen in das Historisch syntaktische Verbwörterbuch . In Historisch syntaktisches Verbwörterbuch. Valenz- und konstruktionsgrammatische Beiträge, Jarmo Korhonen & Albrecht Greule (eds), 261–276. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
In press. Argument structure constructions among German prepositional objects . In Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs], Hans C. Boas & Alexander Ziem eds Berlin/New York Mouton de Gruyter
Rudanko, Juhani
1989Complementation and Case Grammar. A Syntactic and Semantic Study of Selected Patterns of Complementation in Present-Day English. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Schøsler, Lene
2007The status of valency patterns. In Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, Thomas Herbst & Katrin Götz-Votteler (eds.) 51–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003Constructing a Language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter & Zeschel, Arne
2016 On means auf : The semantics of English and German prepositional complements in contrast. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Construction Grammar, Juiz de Fora, 5 October .Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen
2004 Der am‑Progressiv: Struktur und parallele Entwicklung in den kontinentalwestgermanischen Sprachen . Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederik
1973An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, Second Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with More Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar