Dialect syntax in Construction Grammar

References

1. Battistella, Edwin
   1995 “The Syntax of the Double Modal Construction.” Linguistica Atlantica, 17: 19–44.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Beal, Joan
   2004 “English Dialects in the North of England: Morphology and Syntax.” InA Handbook of Varieties of English, Volume 2: Morphology and Syntax, ed. by Bernd Kortmann , and Edgar Schneider , 114–141. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bender, Emily
   2007 “Socially Meaningful Syntactic Variation in Sign-Based Grammar.” English Language & Linguistics11 (2): 347–381. 10.1017/S1360674307002286
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002286 [Google Scholar]
4. Boas, Hans
   2013 “Cognitive Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Boertien, Harmon
   1986 “Constituent Structure of Double Modals.” InLanguage Variety in the South: Perspectives in Black and White, ed. by Michael Montgomery , and Guy Bailey , 294–318. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Butters, Ronald
   1973 “Acceptability Judgments for Double Modals in Southern Dialects.” InNew Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, ed. by Charles Bailey , and Roger Shuy , 276–286. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bybee, Joan
   2013 “Usage-Based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Chomsky, Noam
   1986 Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Corrigan, Karen
   2011 “Grammatical Variation in Irish English.” English Today27 (2): 39–46. 10.1017/S0266078411000198
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078411000198 [Google Scholar]
10. De Clerck, Bernard and Timothy Colleman
    2013 “From Noun to Intensifier: Massa and Massa’s in Flemish Varieties of Dutch.” Language Sciences36:147–160. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005 [Google Scholar]
11. De Wit, Astrid
    2018 “The Semantics of the Simple Tenses and Full-Verb Inversion in English: A Story of Shared Epistemic Schemas.” Constructions and Frames10 (2): 210–233. 10.1075/cf.00019.wit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00019.wit [Google Scholar]
12. DiPaolo, Marianna
    1989 “Double Modals as Single Lexical Items.” American Speech64 (3): 195–224. 10.2307/455589
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455589 [Google Scholar]
13. Elsman, Minta and Stanley Dubinsky
    2009 “Double Modal Syntactic Patterns as Single Modal Interactions.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics15 (1): 75–82.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Falk, Yehuda
    1984 “The English Auxiliary System: A Lexical Functional Analysis.” Language60: 483–509. 10.2307/413988
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413988 [Google Scholar]
15. Gazdar, Gerald , Geoffrey Pullum , and Ivan Sag
    1982 “Auxiliaries and Related Phenomena in a Restrictive Theory of Grammar.” Language58: 591–638. 10.2307/413850
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413850 [Google Scholar]
16. Geeraerts, Dirk , Gitte Kristiansen , and Yves Peirsman
    (eds.) 2010 Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461 [Google Scholar]
17. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
    2007 “To Err Is Not All: What Corpus and Elicitation Can Reveal about the Use of Collocations by Learners.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik55 (3): 273–291. 10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2007.55.3.273 [Google Scholar]
18. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle , and Stefan Gries
    2009 “Corpora and Experimental Methods: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5 (1): 1–26. 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
19. Goldberg, Adele
    2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Goldberg, Adele
    2019 Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gries, Stefan
    2013 “Data in Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 93–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Grieve, Jack , Andrea Nini , and Diansheng Guo
    2017 “Analyzing Lexical Emergence in American English online.” English Language & Linguistics21 (1): 99–127. 10.1017/S1360674316000113
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000113 [Google Scholar]
23. Grieve, Jack , Andrea Nini , and Diansheng Guo
    2018 “Mapping Lexical Innovation on American Social Media”. Journal of English Linguistics46 (4): 293–319. 10.1177/0075424218793191
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424218793191 [Google Scholar]
24. Grieve, Jack , Andrea Nini , Diansheng Guo , and Alice Kasakoff
    2015 “Using Social Media to Map Double Modals in Modern American English.” Paper presented atNew Ways of Analyzing Variation 44, University of Toronto, October 25.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hasty, Daniel
    2012 “This Might Could Help Us Better Understand Syntactic Variation: the Double Modal Construction in Tennessee English.” PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Hasty, Daniel, Ashley Hesson, Suzanne Wagner, and Robert Lannon
    2012 “Finding Needles in the Right Haystack: Double Modals in Medical Conditions.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics18 (2): 41–47.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2006 “Corpora and Introspection as Converging Evidence: The Case of Preposition Placement in English Relative Clauses.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2 (2): 165–195. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.009 [Google Scholar]
28. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2011 Preposition Placement in English: a Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2014 “Obtaining Introspective Acceptability Judgments.” InResearch Methods in Language Variation and Change, ed. byManfred Krug, and Julia Schlüter, 99–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale
    (eds.) 2011 Variation, Change, and Constructions in English. Thematic issue of Cognitive Linguistics22 (1).
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hollmann, Willem
    2013 “Constructions in Cognitive Sociolinguistics.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. byThomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 491–510. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Hollmann, Willem, and Anna Siewierska
    2007 “A Construction Grammar Account of Possessive Constructions in Lancashire Dialect: Some Advantages and Challenges.” English Language & Linguistics11 (2): 407–424. 10.1017/S1360674307002304
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002304 [Google Scholar]
33. Hollmann, Willem , and Anna Siewierska
    2011 “The Status of Frequency, Schemas, and Identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A Case Study of Definite Article Reduction.” Cognitive Linguistics22 (1): 35–54. 10.1515/cogl.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
34. Huang, Nick
    2011 “Multiple Modals.” Yale Grammatical Diversity Project: English in North America. Typoscript available at https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/multiple-modals. Last accessed on12/11/2020.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Huang, Yuan , Diansheng Guo , Alice Kasakoff , and Jack Grieve
    2016 “Understanding US Regional Linguistic Variation with Twitter Data Analysis.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems59: 244–255. 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.12.003 [Google Scholar]
36. Huddleston, Rodney , and Geoffrey Pullum
    2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
37. Hudson, Richard
    2007 “English Dialect Syntax in Word Grammar.” English Language & Linguistics11 (2): 383–405. 10.1017/S1360674307002298
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002298 [Google Scholar]
38. Kristiansen, Gitte , and René Dirven
    (eds.) 2008 Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154 [Google Scholar]
39. Labov, William
    1972 Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Langacker, Ronald
    1982 “Space Grammar, Analyzability and the English Passive.” Language58: 22–80. 10.2307/413531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413531 [Google Scholar]
41. Langacker, Ronald
    1986 “An introduction to Cognitive Grammar.” Cognitive Science10: 1–40. 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1 [Google Scholar]
42. Mishoe, Margaret , and Michael Montgomery
    1994 “The Pragmatics of Multiple Modal Variation in North and South Carolina.” American Speech69 (1): 3–29. 10.2307/455947
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455947 [Google Scholar]
43. Mukherjee, Joybrato , and Stefan Gries
    2009 “Collostructional Nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-Construction Associations in the International Corpus of English.” English World-Wide30 (1): 27–51. 10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk [Google Scholar]
44. Nagle, Stephen
    2003 “Double Modals in the Southern United States: Syntactic Structure or Syntactic Structures?” InModality in Contemporary English, ed. by Roberta Facchinetti , Frank Palmer , and Manfred Krug , 359–372. Berlin/ Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895339.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.349 [Google Scholar]
45. Ostman, Jan-Öla , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013 “Dialects, Discourse, and Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 476–490. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Petré, Peter , and Lynn Anthonissen
    2020 “Individuality in complex systems: a constructionist approach.” Cognitive Linguistics31 (2): 185–212. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0033 [Google Scholar]
47. Pollock, Jean-Yves
    1989 “Verb Movement, UG, and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry20: 365–424.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Pullum, Geoffrey
    2007 “Do Double Modals Really Exist?” Language Log. itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005136.html (last accessed on11/12/2020)
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pütz, Martin , Justyna Robinson , and Monika Reif
    (eds.) 2014 Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.59 [Google Scholar]
50. Smith, Jennifer , David Adger , Brian Aitken , Caroline Heycock , E. Jamieson , and Gary Thoms
    2019 The Scots Syntax Atlas. University of Glasgow. https://scotssyntaxatlas.ac.uk (last accessed on11/12/2020).
    [Google Scholar]
51. Sprouse, Jon , and Carson Schütze
    2019 “Grammar and the Use of Data.” InThe Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, ed. by Bas Aarts , Jill Bowie , and Gergana Popova . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]