oa Today’s innovations, tomorrow’s conventions

References

1. Anttila, Raimo
   2003 Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 425–440. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch10
   https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch10 [Google Scholar]
2. Ariel, Mira
   2008 Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
3. Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder
   2011 Constructions: Emergent or emerging?InPeter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emergent and emerging, 1–21. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.1
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.1 [Google Scholar]
4. Balog, Evelin
   2023 Entrenchment revisited: Some old and new concepts and their empirical validation. Erlangen: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergPhD dissertation. Available online athttps://open.fau.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/5bc90442-66f3-4ca8-8f5a-f578e65c7f77/content
5. Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Anna Kompa
   2020 Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics13(1). 20202025. 10.1515/cogsem‑2020‑2025
   https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025 [Google Scholar]
6. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
   2012 Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
7. Bybee, Joan
   2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
   https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
8. Bybee, Joan, Richard L. File-Muriel & Ricardo Napoleão de Souza
   2016 Special reduction: a usage-based approach. Language and Cognition81. 421–446. 10.1017/langcog.2016.19
   https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.19 [Google Scholar]
9. Croft, William
   2010 The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics48(1). 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
   https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
10. De Smet, Hendrik
    2016 How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change281. 83–102. 10.1017/S0954394515000186
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
11. De Smet, Hendrik
    2018 Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning, 75–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
12. De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
    2018 The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics29(2). 197–234. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025 [Google Scholar]
13. Diessel, Holger
    2019 The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
14. Dietrich, Nadine
    2024 The seamlessness of grammatical innovation: the case of be going to (revisited). Folia Linguistica Historica58(s45–s1). 149–183. 10.1515/flin‑2024‑2004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-2004 [Google Scholar]
15. Fischer, Olga
    2000 Grammaticalisation: unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. InAnnette Rosenbach, Olga Fischer & Dieter Stein (eds.), Pathways of change. Grammaticalization in English, 149–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.53.08fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.53.08fis [Google Scholar]
16. Fischer, Olga
    2010 An analogical approach to grammaticalization. InKaterina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, 181–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.119.11fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.11fis [Google Scholar]
17. Gaglia, Sascha
    2020 The dynamics of analogy: Old French and Old Italian verbal roots. Lingue e Linguaggio1/20201. 61–89.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Gillmann, Melitta
    2021 Analogy as driving force of language change: a usage-based approach to wo and da clauses in 17th and 18th century German. Cognitive Linguistics32(3). 421–453. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0011 [Google Scholar]
19. Greenberg, Joseph H.
    1995 The diachronic typological approach to language. InMasayoshi Shibatani & Theodora Binon (eds.), Approaches to language typology, 145–166. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198242710.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198242710.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
20. Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva, & Haiping Long
    2017 Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics55(4). 1–43. 10.1515/ling‑2017‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0012 [Google Scholar]
21. Hilpert, Martin
    2019 Chapter 5: Historical linguistics. InEwa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics — A survey of linguistic subfields, 108–132. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110626452‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626452-005 [Google Scholar]
22. Hilpert, Martin & David Correia Saavedra
    2018 The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics22(3). 357–380. 10.1017/S1360674316000496
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000496 [Google Scholar]
23. Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
24. Itkonen, Esa
    2013 Functional explanation and its uses. InShannon T. Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds.), Functional approaches to language, 31–70. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110285321.31
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285321.31 [Google Scholar]
25. Hopper, Paul J.
    1998 Emergent Grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol.11, 155–175. Englewood Cliffs: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Keller, Rudi
    1994 On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Kiparsky, Paul
    2012 Grammaticalization as optimization. InDianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, 15–51. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Liu, Meili, Hubert Cuyckens & Fangqiong Zhan
    2025 Language change in a constructional network: The emergence of Mandarin [bi N hai N] comparative constructions. Cognitive Linguistics36(1). 1–29. 10.1515/cog‑2024‑0019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2024-0019 [Google Scholar]
29. López-Couso, Maria José & Javier Pérez-Guerra
    2023 Promoting and inhibiting forces at work: A corpus-based analysis of negative contraction in the recent history of English. InHendrik De Smet, Peter Petré & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Context, intent and variation in grammaticalization, 189–214. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110753059‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110753059-008 [Google Scholar]
30. Lorenz, David
    2024 Potential grammaticalization of epistemic phrases: What could be might be. Functions of Language31(3). 262–288. 10.1075/fol.23021.lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23021.lor [Google Scholar]
31. Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
    2020 Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. InPascal Hohaus & Rainer Schulze (eds.), Re-assessing modalising expressions. Categories, co-text and context, 79–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.216.04lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.04lor [Google Scholar]
32. Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
    2024 Coalescence and contraction of V-to-Vinf sequences in American English — Evidence from spoken language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory20(1). 1–36. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0067
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0067 [Google Scholar]
33. Mair, Christian & Geoffrey Leech
    2006 Current changes in English syntax. In: Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch14 [Google Scholar]
34. Neels, Jakob & Stefan Hartmann
    2022 Grammaticalisation, schematisation and paradigmaticisation: How they intersect in the development of German degree modifiers. InGabriele Diewald & Katja Pollitt (eds.), Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm, 267–196. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden
    2011 Introduction: Reflections on motivation revisited. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon, 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.27.02pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.27.02pan [Google Scholar]
36. Petré, Peter
    2016 Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [BE going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics301. 115–146. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
37. Reinöhl, Uta & Antje Casaretto
    2018 When grammaticalization does not occur: prosody-syntax mismatches in Indo-Aryan. Diachronica35(2). 238–276. 10.1075/dia.17013.rei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17013.rei [Google Scholar]
38. Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina
    (ed.) 2015 Can we predict linguistic change? (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 16). Helsinki: VARIENG. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/16/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
39. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2020 The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
40. Seitanidi, Eleni, Nele Põldvere & Carita Paradis
    2024 Everything-cleft constructions in spoken British English: A neglected construction. Functions of Language31(3). 289–326. 10.1075/fol.23014.sei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23014.sei [Google Scholar]
41. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale
    2010 Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?InElizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.04tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.04tra [Google Scholar]
42. Van de Velde, Freek
    2017 Understanding grammar at the community level requires a diachronic perspective. Nederlandse Taalkunde22(1). 47–74. 10.5117/NEDTAA2017.1.VELD
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2017.1.VELD [Google Scholar]
43. Vartianinen, Turo
    2016 A constructionist approach to category change: constraining factors in the adjectivization of participles. Journal of English Linguistics44(1). 34–60. 10.1177/0075424215622973
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424215622973 [Google Scholar]