Van Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.). (2018). Category Change from a Constructional Perspective

References

1. Aarts, B.
   (2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Aarts, B., Denison, D., Keizer, E., & Popova, G.
   (Eds.) (2004) Fuzzy grammar: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
   (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
4. Booij, G.
   (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. Closs
   (2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
6. Bybee, J.
   (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
7. Coussé, E.
   (2014) Lexical expansion in the have and be perfect in Dutch. A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica, 31(2), 159–191. 10.1075/dia.31.2.01cou
   https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.2.01cou [Google Scholar]
8. Croft, W.
   (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
9. 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. 10.1017/S136067430700250X
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067430700250X [Google Scholar]
10. De Smet, H.
    (2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 119(11), 1728–1755. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
11. De Smet, H.
    (2012) The course of actualization. Language, 88(3), 601–633. 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
12. De Smet, H., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2013) Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language, 37(3), 534–565. 10.1075/sl.37.3.04des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.04des [Google Scholar]
13. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
14. 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]
15. Fischer, O.
    (2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Fonteyn, L.
    (2016) From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology. Functions of Language, 23(1), 82–106. 10.1075/fol.23.1.04fon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23.1.04fon [Google Scholar]
17. Geeraerts, D.
    (1997) Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Gildea, S.
    (Ed.) (2000) Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.43
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.43 [Google Scholar]
19. Heyvaert, L.
    (2003) A cognitive-functional approach to deverbal nominalization in English. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110903706
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110903706 [Google Scholar]
20. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?InW. 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]
21. Hoecksema, J.
    (2012) Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. InG. Ooebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich (pp.97–142). Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. Closs
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
23. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Lauwers, P.
    (2014) Between adjective and noun: Category/function mismatch, constructional overrides and coercion. InR. Simone & F. Masini (Eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology, and representations (pp.203–226). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Lehmann, C.
    (1995) [1982] Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
27. 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]
28. Norde, M.
    (2014) On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented atCoglingdays 2014, Ghent University. Retrieved fromhttps://www.academia.edu/9873697/On_parents_and_peers_in_constructional_networks
    [Google Scholar]
29. Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K.
    (2015) Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: Degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie?Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. 10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.NORD
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.NORD [Google Scholar]
30. Petré, P.
    (2013) LEON: Leuven English Old to New, Version 0.3.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Rosch, E.
    (1975) Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 573–605.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Sommerer, L.
    (2018) Article emergence in Old English. A constructionalist perspective. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110541052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110541052 [Google Scholar]
33. Taylor, J. R.
    (1995) Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2010) Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90 [Google Scholar]
36. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
37. Trousdale, G., & Norde, M.
    (2013) Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.018 [Google Scholar]
38. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.141–179). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Verveckken, K.
    (2015) Binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110406733
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110406733 [Google Scholar]