Response to Wärnsby

References

1. Aarts, B
   (2004) Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language, 28(1), 1–49. doi: 10.1075/sl.28.1.02aar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.1.02aar [Google Scholar]
2. Aarts, B
   (2007) In defence of distributional analysis, pace Croft. Studies in Language, 31(2), 431–443. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.2.06aar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.06aar [Google Scholar]
3. Adger, D
   (2013) Constructions and grammatical explanation: Comments on Goldberg. Mind and Language, 28(4), 466–478. doi: 10.1111/mila.12027
   https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12027 [Google Scholar]
4. Bencini, G
   (2013) Psycholinguistics. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.379–396). New York: OUP.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bergs, A. , & Diewald, G
   (Eds.) (2009) Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9 [Google Scholar]
6. Boogaart, R
   (2009) Semantics and pragmatics in construction grammar: The case of modal verbs. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.213–241). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.09boo
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.09boo [Google Scholar]
7. Booij, G
   (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: OUP.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bybee, J
   (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). New York: OUP.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Croft, W
   (2007) Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language, 31(2), 409–430. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.2.05cro
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.05cro [Google Scholar]
10. Croft, W
    (2010) Commentary on Cristofaro – What do semantic maps tell us?Linguistic Discovery, 8(1), 53–60. doi: 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.362
    https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.362 [Google Scholar]
11. Croft, W
    (2013) Radical Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.211–232). New York: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
12. De Smet, H. , Ghesquière, L. , & Van de Velde, F
    (Eds.) (2013) On multiple sources in language change. Special issue of Studies in Language, 37(3).
    [Google Scholar]
13. Denison, D. , & Cort, A
    (2010)  Better as a verb. In H. Cuyckens , K. Davidse , & L. Vandelanotte (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp.349–383). Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110226102.4.349
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.4.349 [Google Scholar]
14. Eide, K
    (2002) Norwegian modals. PhD dissertation. Department of Linguistics, NTNU, Trondheim.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fischer, O
    (2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Fried, M
    (2009) Repersenting contextual factors in language change. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.04fri [Google Scholar]
17. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Goldberg, A.E
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Goldberg, A.E
    (2013a) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational templates. Mind and Language, 28(4), 435–365. doi: 10.1111/mila.12026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
20. Goldberg, A.E
    (2013b) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.15–31). New York: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Hilpert, M
    (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
22. Hilpert, M
    (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
23. Holmberg, A
    (2010) Referring to yourself in self-talk. In C. J-W. Zwart & M. de Vries (Eds.), Structure preserved: Studies in syntax for Jan Koster (pp.185–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.164.21hol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.164.21hol [Google Scholar]
24. Hudson, R
    (2007) Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hudson, R
    (2010) An introduction to word grammar. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511781964
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511781964 [Google Scholar]
26. Kay, P
    (2004) Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.675–700). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Lambrecht, K
    (2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft-constructions. Linguistics, 39, 463–516. doi: 10.1515/ling.2001.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
28. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Patten, A
    (2012) The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110279528
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279528 [Google Scholar]
30. Roberts, I
    (2010) Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp.45–73). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.90.05rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.05rob [Google Scholar]
31. Sag, I
    (2010) English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86(3), 486–545. doi: 10.1353/lan.2010.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0002 [Google Scholar]
32. Sag, I
    (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H.C Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Stefanowitsch, A
    (2013) Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.290–306). New York: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Townsend, S
    (1992) The Queen and I. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
35. van der Auwera, J. , & Plungian, V.A
    (1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124. doi: 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
36. van Trijp, R. , & Steels, L
    (2012) Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(3-4). https://www.csl.sony.fr/downloads/papers/2012/vantrijp-12f.pdf. doi: 10.1142/S0219525912500397
    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525912500397 [Google Scholar]
37. Warner, A
    (1993) English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511752995
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752995 [Google Scholar]
38. Wärnsby, A
    (2002) Modal constructions? Lund Working Papers in Linguistics, 2. Lund: Department of English Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]