The author and the text in radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar, or why historical linguists have started analysing text again

References

1. Adolphs, Svenja
   2006 Introducing electronic text analysis: A practical guide for language and literary studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203087701
   https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087701 [Google Scholar]
2. Barlow, Michael
   2013 Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(4). 443–478. 10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar [Google Scholar]
3. Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
   (eds.) 2000 Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea
   2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
5. Berry, Margaret
   1982 Review of M.A.K. Halliday (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Nottingham Linguistic Circular11(1). 64–94.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Berry, Margaret
   1989 They’re all out of step except our Johnny: A discussion of motivation (or the lack of it) in systemic linguistics. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics3. 5–67.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Berry, Margaret
   1996 What is Theme? A(nother) personal view. InMargaret Berry, Christopher Butler, Robin Fawcett & Guowen Huang (eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations, 1–64. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Dąbrowska, Ewa
   2012 Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism2(3). 219–253. 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
   https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab [Google Scholar]
9. Dąbrowska, Ewa
   2016 Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics27(4). 479–491. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0059
   https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059 [Google Scholar]
10. De Smet, Hendrik
    2016 How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change28(1). 83–102. 10.1017/S0954394515000186
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
11. Fischer, Olga
    2007 Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fischer, Olga
    2008 On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language32(2). 336–382. 10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
13. Fischer, Olga
    2009 Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?View[z]: Vienna English Working Papers18(2). 3–23.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fried, Mirjam
    2008 Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 47–79. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
16. Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow
    2000 Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. InMichael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), vii–xxviii.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2001 Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12(2). 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
19. Noël, Dirk
    2007 Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language14(2). 177–202. 10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe [Google Scholar]
20. Noël, Dirk
    2016 For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics30. 39–53. 10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe [Google Scholar]
21. Noël, Dirk
    2017 The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua199. 72–93. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012 [Google Scholar]
22. Petré, Peter
    2016 Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics30. 115–146. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
23. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2015 A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association3. 1–27. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
24. Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Annette Mantlik
    2015 Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia133(4). 583–623. 10.1515/ang‑2015‑0056
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2015-0056 [Google Scholar]
25. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
26. von Mengden, Ferdinand & Evie Coussé
    2014 Introduction: The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. InEvie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 1–19. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Winters, Margaret E. & Geoffrey S. Nathan
    1992 First he called her a philologist and then she insulted him. InDiane Brentari, Gary N. Larson & Lynn A. MacLeod (eds.), The joy of grammar: A festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley, 351–367. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.55.22win
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.55.22win [Google Scholar]