Future constructions in English and Norwegian

References

1. Berglund, Y.
   2000 Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. InCorpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds.), 35–50. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004490758_005
   https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004490758_005 [Google Scholar]
2. Bergs, A.
   2010 Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics14(2): 217–238. 10.1017/S1360674310000067
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000067 [Google Scholar]
3. Brisard, F.
   1997 The English tense-system as an epistemic category: the case of futurity. InLexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, M. H. Verspoor and E. Sweetser (eds.), 271–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.150.20bri
   https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.150.20bri [Google Scholar]
4. Cappelle, B.
   2006 Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions. 10.24338/CONS‑381
   https://doi.org/10.24338/CONS-381 [Google Scholar]
5. Denis, D. and Tagliamonte, S. A.
   2018 The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics22(3): 403–430. 10.1017/S1360674316000551
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000551 [Google Scholar]
6. Engel, A. and Szmrecsanyi, B.
   2022 Variable grammars are variable across registers: future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change341: 355–378. 10.1017/S0954394522000163
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394522000163 [Google Scholar]
7. Flach, S.
   2021 collostructions: An R Implementation for the Family of Collostructional Methods. Retrieved fromwww.sfla.ch/collostructions [last accessed23 February 2024]
8. Goldberg, A.
   1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Goldberg, A.
   2019 Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Gries, S. Th.
    2016 Variationist analysis. InTriangulating methodological approaches in corpus-linguistic research, P. Baker and J. Egbert (eds.), 108–123. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Gries, S. Th. and Stefanowitsch, A.
    2004 Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on “Alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
12. Hasselgård, H.
    2015 Coming and going to the future: Future-referring expressions in English and Norwegian. InCross-linguistic perspectives on verb constructions, S. O. Ebeling and H. Hasselgård (eds.), 88–115. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Hilpert, M.
    2008 Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
14. Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A.
    1980 Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language56(2): 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
15. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. and Zeileis, A.
    2006 Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics15(3), 651–674. 10.1198/106186006X133933
    https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
16. Ide, N., Reppen, R. and Suderman, K.
    2002 The American national corpus: More than the web can provide. InProceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’02). Las Palmas, Canary Islands — Spain: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 839–844.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Kursa, M. B. and Rudnicki, W. R.
    2010 Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software36(11). 1–13. 10.18637/jss.v036.i11
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i11 [Google Scholar]
18. Levshina, N.
    2020 Conditional Inference Trees and Random Forests. InA Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, M. Paquot, S. Th. and Gries (eds.), 611–643. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑46216‑1_25
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_25 [Google Scholar]
19. Lorenz, D.
    2013 On-Going Change in English Modality: Emancipation Through Frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik43(1): 33–48. 10.1007/BF03379871
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03379871 [Google Scholar]
20. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T.
    2017 “The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and Building a Spoken Corpus of Everyday Conversations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(3): 319–44. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov [Google Scholar]
21. Mac Donald, K.
    1982 Uttrykk for ramtid i norsk. Norskrift391: 74–87.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Mikkelsen, O. and Glynn, D.
    forthcoming. The future that may still be: the spread of blir å INF in contemporary Norwegian. InFutures of the past, S. Hartmann and L. Schnee eds Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Mikkelsen, O. and Hartmann, S.
    2022 Competing future constructions and the complexity principle: A contrastive outlook. InBroadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New Approaches to Variability and Change, S. Flach and M. Hilpert (eds.), 9–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.105.01mik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.105.01mik [Google Scholar]
24. Mikkelsen, O. and Horbowicz, P.
    2022 Modelling Semantics in constructional near-synonymy: A usage-based perspective on Norwgian future constructions. Presentation at theconference “Constructions in the Nordics” (CxgN3), Kiel, Germany, September 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Pijpops, D.
    2020 What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics341: 283–294. 10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij [Google Scholar]
26. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
27. Rohdenburg, G.
    1996 Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics7(2): 149–182. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
28. Schweinberger, M.
    2023 Tree-based models in R. Brisbane: University of Queensland. https://slcladal.github.io/tree.html [last accessed22 February 2024]
    [Google Scholar]
29. Schweinberger, M.
    2021 On the waning of forms — A corpus-based analysis of decline and loss in adjective amplification. InLost in change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions, S. Kranich and T. Breban (eds.), 235–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.218.08sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.218.08sch [Google Scholar]
30. Stefanowitsch, A.
    2013 Collostructional Analysis. InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), 290–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. Th.
    2005 Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1(1), 1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
32. Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. Th.
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
33. Stoppiglia, H., Dreyfus, G., Dubois, R. and Oussar, Y.
    2003 Ranking a Random Feature for Variable and Feature Selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research31: 1399–1414. 10.1162/153244303322753733
    https://doi.org/10.1162/153244303322753733 [Google Scholar]
34. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A. and Hothorn, T.
    2007 Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources and a Solution. BMC Bioinformatics8(25). Retrieved fromwww.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/25. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
35. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    2003 Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter?Journal of English Linguistics31(4): 295–323. 10.1177/0075424203257830
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424203257830 [Google Scholar]
36. Tagliamonte, S. A. and Baayen, R. H.
    2012 Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change24(02): 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
37. Tamminga, M., MacKenzie, L. and Embick, D.
    2016 The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation16(2): 300–336. 10.1075/lv.16.2.06tam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.16.2.06tam [Google Scholar]
38. Torres Cacoullos, R. and Walker, J. A.
    2009 The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language85(2): 321–354. JSTOR. Retrieved fromJSTOR.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Ungerer, T. and Hartmann, S.
    2023 Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009308717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009308717 [Google Scholar]
40. Vannebo, K. I.
    1985 Tempussystemet i norsk. Norskrift461: 1–60.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Zehentner, E.
    2019 Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110633856
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856 [Google Scholar]