The development of heterosemous inflection and derivation

References

1. Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S.
   (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–49). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
2. Booij, G.
   (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Corbett, G. G.
   (2000) Number. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
4. Diessel, H.
   (2019) The grammar network. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
5. Diewald, G.
   (2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. Paradigms as hyper-constructions. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
6. Elsner, D.
   (2015) Adverbial morphology in German. Formations with -weise/-erweise. InK. Pittner, D. Elsner, & F. Barteld (Eds.), Adverbs. Functional and diachronic aspects (pp. 101–132). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.170.05els
   https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.170.05els [Google Scholar]
7. Enger, H.-O., & Conzett, P.
   (2016) Morfologi [Morphology]. InH. Sandøy (Ed.), Norsk språkhistorie [Norwegian language history], vol.11: Mønster [Patterns] (pp. 213–315). Novus.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Enger, H.-O., & Nesset, T.
   (2011) Constraints on diachronic development: the Animacy Hierarchy and the Relevance Constraint. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 641, 193–212. 10.1524/stuf.2011.0015
   https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2011.0015 [Google Scholar]
9. Fjeld, R. V., Nøklestad, A., & Hagen, K.
   (2020) Leksikografisk bokmålskorpus (LBK) – bakgrunn og bruk [The Lexicographic Corpus of Bokmål Norwegian – background and use]. InJ. B. Johannessen & K. Hagen (Eds.), Leksikografi og korpus [Lexicography and corpus], Oslo Studies in Language, 111, 47–59.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Hansen, Aa
    (1933) Sætningen og dens led i moderne dansk [The sentence and its constituents in modern Danish]. Nyt Nordisk Forlag.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Hathout, N., & Namer, F.
    (2019) Paradigms in word formation: what are we up to?Morphology, 291, 153–165. 10.1007/s11525‑019‑09344‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-019-09344-3 [Google Scholar]
12. Kinn, T.
    (1998) Drøssevis av forsømte avleiingar: ord på -vis [Heaps of neglected derivatives: words in -vis]. Nordica Bergensia, 191, 101–126.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Kinn, T.
    (2001) Pseudopartitives in Norwegian. University of Bergen PhDdissertation.
14. Kinn, T.
    (2005) Ord på -vis i moderne norsk: samansetningar, avleiingar – og bøyingsformer? [Words in -vis in modern Norwegian: compounds, derivatives – and inflectional forms?] Maal og Minne, 971, 45–78.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Kinn, T.
    (2007) Den historiske utviklinga til ord på -vis. [The historical development of words in -vis]. Maal og Minne, 991, 9–28 and 158–186.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Leino, J.
    (2022) Formalizing paradigms in Construction Grammar. InG. Diewald & K. Politt (Eds.), Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm (pp. 37–65). Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Lichtenberk, F.
    (1991) Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 671, 475–509. 10.1353/lan.1991.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0009 [Google Scholar]
18. Masini, F., & Audring, J.
    (2018) Construction Morphology. InJ. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 365–389). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Norde, M.
    (2005) Adverb och adjektiv på -vis i svenskan [Adverbs and adjectives in -vis in Swedish]. Svenskans beskrivning, 271, 233–245.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Norde, M., & Morris, C.
    (2018) Derivation without category change. InK. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–91). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20.03nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.03nor [Google Scholar]
21. Opdahl, L.
    (2003) The suffix -wise: Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty?InK. Aijmer & B. Olinder (Eds.), Proceedings from the 8th Nordic Conference of English Studies (pp. 59–70). Göteborgs universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Štekauer, P.
    (2014) Derivational paradigms. InR. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (pp. 354–369). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Stump, G. T.
    (1998) Inflection. InA. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 13–43). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Tiisala, S.
    (1990) Naturligtvis – från ord till suffix. [Naturligtvis – from word to suffix]. Svenskans beskrivning, 171, 357–366.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
26. Ungerer, T.
    (to appear). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin?Constructions and Frames.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Van de Velde, F.
    (2004) Exaptatie en subjectificatie in de Nederlandse adverbiale morfologie [Exaptation and subjectification in Dutch adverbial morphology]. Handelingen – Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse maatschappij voor taal- en letterkunde en geschiedenis, 581, 105–124. 10.21825/kzm.v58i0.17374
    https://doi.org/10.21825/kzm.v58i0.17374 [Google Scholar]