Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations

References

1. Adamson, S
   (1995) From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivization as processes of language change. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 195–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010 [Google Scholar]
2. Bakhtin, M
   (1986) Speech genres and other late essays (Translated by Vern W. McGee ). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bally, C
   (1912) Le style indirect libre en francais modern. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift4, 549–56 and 597–606.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Banfield, A
   (1982) Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bazerman, C
   (1994) Constructing experience. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Benveniste, E
   (1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bhatia, V.K
   (1993) Analysing genre. Language use in professional settings. London/New York: Longman.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S
   (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
9. Biber, D. , Connor, U. , & Upton, T
   (2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.28
   https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
10. Bosseaux, C
    (2004)  Translation and narration: A corpus-based study of French translations of two novels by Virginia Woolf . Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.
11. Brinton, L
    (1995) Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker’. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 173–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.009 [Google Scholar]
12. Bybee, J
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
13. Bybee, J. , & Torres Cacoullos, R
    (2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R.L. Corrigan , E.A. Moravcsik , H. Ouali , & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language, volume 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.82.09the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.09the [Google Scholar]
14. Chafe, W
    (1980) The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Christidis, A
    (1981) ‘Οτι/πως - που: επιλογή δεικτών συμπληρωμάτων στα Νέα Ελληνικά [ Oti/pos –pu: complementizer selection in Modern Greek]. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα2 (pp.113–177). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Christidis, A
    (1986) Το μόρφημα που σαν αναφορικός δείκτης [The morpheme pu as an anaphoric marker]. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα7 (pp.135–148). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
    (1987 [1993]) London: Harper Collins Publishers.
18. Corbett, J
    (2006) Genre and genre analysis. In E.K. Brown & A. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (pp. 26–32). Boston: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00514‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00514-9 [Google Scholar]
19. Delveroudi, R. , Tsamadou, I. , & Vassilaki, S
    (1993) Contribution à l’ étude de la modalité en Grec Moderne: Le marqueurνα. Linguistique Formelle [Collection ERA 642]. Paris: Université Paris 7.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Eggins, S
    (2004) An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Emanatian, M
    (1997) The spatialization of judgement. In W.A. Liebert , G. Redeker , & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.131–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151.11ema
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.11ema [Google Scholar]
22. Fillmore, C.J
    (1981) Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 143–166). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Fillmore, C.J
    (1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Fillmore, C.J
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Fludernik, M
    (1993) The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: The linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Fludernik, M
    (2001) New wine in old bottles? Voice, focalization and new writing. New Literary History, 32(3), 619–638. doi: 10.1353/nlh.2001.0033
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2001.0033 [Google Scholar]
27. Fried, M. , & Östman, J.-O
    (2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J-O. Őstman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
28. Fried, M. , & Östman, J.-O
    (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
29. Ginzburg, J. , & Kolliakou, D
    (1997) Events and facts: A semantics of pu and oti clauses. Greek linguistics ‘95: Proceedings of the 2nd international congress on Greek linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 459–470). Graz: W. Neugebauer.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Goldberg, A
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Goldberg, A
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Haberlandt, K. , Sandson, J. , & Berian, C
    (1980) The episode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 635–651. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90331‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90331-X [Google Scholar]
33. Halliday, M.A.K. , & Hasan, R
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Holton, D. , Mackridge, P. , & Philippaki-Warburton, I
    (1997) Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G.K
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Ji, S
    (2002) Identifying episode transitions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(9), 1257–1271. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00067‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00067-9 [Google Scholar]
37. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
38. Kleris, C. , & Babiniotis, G
    (2005).Γραμματική της Νέας Ελληνικής (A grammar of Modern Greek). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Kuno, S
    (1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Kuno, S. , & Kaburaki, E
    (1977) Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Langacker, R
    (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 5–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
42. Langacker, R
    (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II, Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Langacker, R
    (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Langacker, R
    (2001) The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 251–272. doi: 10.1017/S1360674301000235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674301000235 [Google Scholar]
45. Mackridge, P
    (1985) The Modern Greek language: A descriptive analysis of standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Martin, J.R
    (1992) English text. System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
47. Martin, J.R
    (1997) Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. 3–39). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Michaelis, L
    (2004) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.04mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.04mic [Google Scholar]
49. Michaelis, L. , & Lambrecht, K
    (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. doi: 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
50. Miller, C
    (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167. doi: 10.1080/00335638409383686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
51. Moser, A
    (1994).Ποιόν και απόψεις του ρήματος [Verbal aspect and aktionsart]. [Parousia Journal Monograph Series 30]. Athens: Parousia.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Newman, J. , & Rice, S
    (2006) Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 225–260). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Nicholas, N
    (1999)  The story of pu. The grammaticalization in space and time of a Modern Greek complementizer . Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. The University of Melbourne.
54. Nikiforidou, K
    (2006) Subjective construal and factual interpretation in sentential complements. In A. Athanasiadou , B. Cornillie , & C. Canakis (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 347–374). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Nikiforidou, K
    (2010) Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past + now . Language and Literature, 19(3), 265–284. doi: 10.1177/0963947010370253
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010370253 [Google Scholar]
56. Nikiforidou, K
    (2011) Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. [Parousia Journal Monograph Series 81]. Athens: Parousia.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Nikiforidou, K
    (2012) The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language. A multimodal perspective (pp.177–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014 [Google Scholar]
58. Nikiforidou, K. , Marmaridou, S. , & Mikros, G
    (2014) What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0060
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0060 [Google Scholar]
59. Oshima, D.Y
    (2007) Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics, 45, 727–763. doi: 10.1515/LING.2007.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.022 [Google Scholar]
60. Östman, J-O
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J-O. Őstman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
61. Papadopoulou, I
    (1994) The grammaticalization of the Modern Greek sentential complementation system. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Essex.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Short, M
    (1996) Exploring the language of poems, plays, and prose. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Steen, F. , & Turner, M
    (2013) Multimodal construction grammar. In M. Borkent , B. Dancygier , & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Steen, G
    (2011) Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In M. Callies , W. Keller , & A. Lohffer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
65. Swales, J
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Turner, M
    (2014) Audiovisual constructions. Plenary talk, 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8) , Osnabrück University, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
67. Van Dijk, T.A
    (1981) Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 177–195). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Varlokosta, S
    (1994) Factive complements in Modern Greek. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 238–258.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Wilkins, D.P
    (1992) Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2-3), 119–158. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90049‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H [Google Scholar]
70. Wright, S
    (1995) Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 151–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008 [Google Scholar]