From manipulation to social interaction

References

1. Ariel, M.
   (1990) Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London/New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ariel, M. , Dattner, E. , Du Bois, J. W. , & Linzen, T.
   (2015) Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language, 39(2), 257–321. doi: 10.1075/sl.39.2.01ari
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.2.01ari [Google Scholar]
3. Berger, R.
   (1940) From hostage to contract. Illinois Law Review, 35(3), 281–292.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bosworth, J.
   (Ed. Northcote Toller, T. ) (1898) An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bybee, J. , & Pagliuca, W.
   (1985) Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics, historical word formation (pp.59–83). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.. doi: 10.1515/9783110850178.59
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.59 [Google Scholar]
6. Bybee, J. , & Torres Cacoullos, R.
   (2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan , E. A. Moravcsik , H. Ouali , & K. M. 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]
7. Chafe, W.
   (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Croft, W. , & Cruse, D. A.
   (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
9. Du Bois, J. W.
   (2003) Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume2 (pp.47–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1977) The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 8: Grammatical relations (pp.59–81). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fotion, N.
    (1981) I’ll bet you $10 that betting is not a speech act. In H. Parret , M. Sbisà , & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Proceedings of the conference on pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979 (pp.211–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.7.14fot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.7.14fot [Google Scholar]
12. Geeraerts, D.
    (2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.435–465). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219197.435
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.435 [Google Scholar]
13. Givón, T.
    (1975) Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Word order and word order change (pp.47–112). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?In W. Bisang , N. Himmelmann , & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look at its fringes and its components (pp.19–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
17. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. Létoublon, F.
    (1991) Promisi per iocum. In R. Coleman (Ed.), New studies in Latin linguistics: Selected papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987 (pp.163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Nunberg, G. , Sag, I. A. , & Wasow, T.
    (1994) Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. doi: 10.1353/lan.1994.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007 [Google Scholar]
20. Ruppenhofer, J. , Ellsworth, M. , Petruck, M. R. L. , Johnson, C. R. , & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Stern, G.
    (1968 [1931]) Meaning and change of meaning. With special reference to the English language. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Toller, T. N.
    (1921) An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Traugott, E. C.
    (1991) English speech act verbs: A historical perspective. In L. R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds.), New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation (pp.387–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.49.24clo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.49.24clo [Google Scholar]
24. Traugott, E. C. , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
25. Verhagen, A.
    (2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]