Volume 47, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The term grammaticalization originally denoted a particular outcome of language change (lexis > morphology), then got expanded to practically all studies involving language change, the processes that create such changes, and a theory modeling these. These expansions have been challenged in the literature as conceptually flawed. A usage-based analysis of the evolution of the concept culminates in the use of the term grammaticalization as a “flag” of a particular approach to linguistics. However, the theoretical premises of grammaticalization studies are entirely compatible with the premises of Diachronic Construction Grammar (DCxG). All studies within the “expanded” concept of grammaticalization can be explicitly modeled within DCxG, which provides formalism of sufficient detail to map the gradual nature of language change in cases of grammaticalization and beyond. Consequently, the most vigorous attacks on grammaticalization lose power when grammaticalization is seen as part of a larger, more complete theory of language and language change.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbott, Miriam
    1991 Macushi. InDesmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol.31, 23–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, Henning
    (ed.) 2001Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.219
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.219 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Stephen R.
    2015 Morphological change. InClaire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 264–285. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2006 Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics17(1). 39–106. 10.1515/COG.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2008Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2009 The development of case in Germanic. InJóhanna Barðdal & Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case, 123–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.108.09bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108.09bar [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 438–457. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2014 Syntax and syntactic reconstruction. InClaire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 343–373. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman
    2013 The story of ‘woe’. Journal of Indo-European Studies41(3–4). 321–377.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Shobhana L. Chelliah
    (eds) 2009The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.108
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.108 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson
    2012a “Hungering and lusting for women and fleshly delicacies”: Reconstructing grammatical relations for Proto-Germanic. Transactions of the Philological Society110(3). 363–393. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2012.01318.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2012.01318.x [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012b Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the Comparative Method. InHans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 257–308. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2020 How to identify cognates in syntax: Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. InJóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Lujan (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 197–238. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004392007_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392007_006 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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, 1–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  15. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Luján
    (eds) 2020Reconstructing syntax. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004392007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004392007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea
    (eds) 2015Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  17. Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thomas Smitherman
    2013 The quest for cognates: A reconstruction of oblique subject constructions in Proto-Indo-European. Language Dynamics and Change3(1). 28–67. 10.1163/22105832‑13030101
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030101 [Google Scholar]
  18. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Gard B. Jenset & Barbara. McGillwray
    2012 Reconstructing constructional Semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language36(3). 511–547. 10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.03bar [Google Scholar]
  19. Bergen, Benjamin & Nancy Chang
    2013 Embodied Construction Grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
    (eds) 2008Constructions and language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211757
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757 [Google Scholar]
  21. Bisang, Walter
    2010 Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account. InElizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 245–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.13bis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.13bis [Google Scholar]
  22. Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer
    2004 (eds.). What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197440
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440 [Google Scholar]
  23. Blank, Andreas
    1999 Why do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic change. InAndreas Blank & Peter Koch (eds.), Historical semantics and cognition, 61–90. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110804195.61
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804195.61 [Google Scholar]
  24. Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag
    (eds) 2012Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Burling, Robbins
    1992Patterns of language: Structure, variation, change. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bybee, Joan L.
    2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. InBrian. D. Joseph & Richard. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  27. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  28. Bybee, Joan L.
    2013 Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. InThomas Hoffman & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman
    1999 The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics37(4). 575–596. 10.1515/ling.37.4.575
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575 [Google Scholar]
  31. Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
    1997 Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society231. 378–388. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293 [Google Scholar]
  32. Bybee, Joan
    2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language821. 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  33. Campbell, Lyle
    (ed.) 2001 Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. [Special Issue]. Language Sciences23(2–3).
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Campbell, Lyle & Richard Janda
    2001 Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their Problems. Language Sciences23(2–3). 93–112. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00018‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00018-8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson
    (eds) 2018Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2018 Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. InEvie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Croft, William
    2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2012Verbs: Aspect and clausal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
    2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  41. Danesi, Serena, Cynthia A. Johnson & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2017 Between the historical languages and the reconstructed Language: An alternative approach to the gerundive + “dative of agent” construction in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen1221. 143–188. 10.1515/if‑2017‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/if-2017-0007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Daniels, Don
    2014 Complex coordination in diachrony: Two Sogeram case studies. Diachronica31(3). 379–406. 10.1075/dia.31.3.03dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.03dan [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 A method for mitigating the problem of borrowing in syntactic reconstruction. Studies in Language41(3). 577–614. 10.1075/sl.41.3.02dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.3.02dan [Google Scholar]
  44. 2019 Using phonotactics to reconstruct degrammaticalization: The origin of the Sirva pronoun be. Diachronica36(1): 1–36. 10.1075/dia.18015.dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18015.dan [Google Scholar]
  45. 2020Grammatical reconstruction: The Sogeram languages of New Guinea. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110616217
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616217 [Google Scholar]
  46. DeLancey, Scott
    2004 Grammaticalization: from syntax to morphology. InGeert Booij, Christian Lehman, Joachim Mugdan & Stavos Skopetas (eds.). Morphologie / Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 1590–1599. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110172782.2.17.1590
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110172782.2.17.1590 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2011 Grammaticalization and syntax: A functional view. InHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 365–377. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0029 [Google Scholar]
  48. De Smet, Hendrik
    2012 The course of actualization. Language88(3). 601–633. 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  49. De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde
    (eds.) 2015On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.79
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79 [Google Scholar]
  50. Diewald, Gabriele
    2009 Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik371. 445–468. 10.1515/ZGL.2009.031
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ZGL.2009.031 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2015Review of Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur1371. 108–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2020 Paradigms lost – Paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. InLotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 278–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
  53. Dunn, Michael, Tonya Kim Dewey, Carlee Arnett, Thórhallur Eythórsson & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2017 Dative sickness: A phylogenetic analysis of argument structure evolution in Germanic. Language93(1). e1–e22. 10.1353/lan.2017.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0012 [Google Scholar]
  54. Evans, Nicholas
    2007 Insubordination and its uses. InIrina Nikolae (ed.), Finiteness, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Evans, Nicholas & Honre Watanabe
    (eds) 2016Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  56. Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2016 Syntactic reconstruction in Indo-European: The state of the art. InJoaquín Gorrochategui, Carlos García Castillero & José. M. Vallejo (eds.), Franz Bopp and his Comparative Grammar Model (1816–2016), [special monographic volume]Veleia331. 83–102. 10.1387/veleia.16823
    https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.16823 [Google Scholar]
  57. Faarlund, Jan Terje
    2001 Introduction. InJan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in change, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.56.02faa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.56.02faa [Google Scholar]
  58. Fanego, Teresa
    2004 On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica21(1). 5–55. 10.1075/dia.21.1.03fan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21.1.03fan [Google Scholar]
  59. Fillmore, Charles J.
    2013 Berkeley Construction Grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 111–132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language641. 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  61. Flach, Susanne
    2020 Constructionalization and the Sorites paradox: The emergence of the into-causative. InLotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 46–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.01fla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.01fla [Google Scholar]
  62. Fried, Mirjam
    2009 Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames1(2). 261–290. 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  63. 2013 Principles of constructional change. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015 Irregular morphology in regular syntactic patterns: A case of constructional re-alignment. InJóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 141–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.05fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.05fri [Google Scholar]
  65. Frotscher, Michael, Guus Kroonen & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2022 Indo-European inroads into the syntactic–etymological interface: A reconstruction of the PIE verbal root *menkʷ ‘to be short; to lack’ and its argument structure. Historische Sprachforschung1331(2020) 62–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Gildea, Spike
    1993a The rigid postverbal subject in Panare: A historical explanation. International Journal of American Linguistics591. 44–63. 10.1086/466184
    https://doi.org/10.1086/466184 [Google Scholar]
  67. 1993b The development of tense markers from demonstrative pronouns in Panare (Cariban). Studies in Language171. 53–73. 10.1075/sl.17.1.03gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17.1.03gil [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997 Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. InTalmy Givón (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.35.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.35.04gil [Google Scholar]
  69. 1998On Reconstructing grammar: Comparative Cariban morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2000 On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages. InSpike Gildea (ed.), Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization, 65–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.43.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.43.04gil [Google Scholar]
  71. 2004 Are there universal cognitive motivations for ergativity?InFrancesc Queixalós (ed.), L’ergativité en Amazonie, Vol.21, 1–37. Brasília: CNRS, IRD and the Laboratório de Línguas Indígenas, UnB.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 2008 Explaining similarities between main clauses and nominalized clauses. InAna Carla Bruno, Frantomé Pacheco, Francesc Queixalos & Leo Wetzels (eds.), La structure des langues amazoniennes [Special Issue], Amérindia321. 57–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2011 Diachronic pathways that create stance constructions in selected South American languages. Paper presented at theworkshop Stance Marking Across Languages: Typological, Diachronic & Discourse Perspectives, Hong Kong, 18–20 July.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2012 Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. InLyle Campbell & Veronica Grondona (eds.), Handbook of South American Languages, 441–494. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110258035.441
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110258035.441 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2018 Reconstructing the copulas and nonverbal predicate constructions in Cariban. InSimon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds.), Nonverbal predication in Amazonian languages, 365–402. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.122.14gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.122.14gil [Google Scholar]
  76. Gildea, Spike & Flávia de Castro Alves
    2020 Reconstructing the source of nominative-absolutive alignment in two Amazonian language families. InJóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea & Eugenio R. Luján, Reconstructing Syntax, 47–107. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Gildea, Spike & Katharina Haude
    2011 The origins of the Movima hierarchical alignment: Internal reconstruction. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Historical Linguistics, Osaka, July 25–29.
  78. Gildea, Spike & Joana Jansen
    2018 The development of referential hierarchy effects in Sahaptian. InSonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 131–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.121.04gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.121.04gil [Google Scholar]
  79. Gildea, Spike, Eugenio Luján, & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2020 The curious case of reconstructing syntax. InJóhanna Barðdal, Eugenio Luján & Spike Gildea (eds.), Reconstructing syntax, 1–44. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Gildea, Spike & Géraldine Walther
    2015 Information load determines optionality in Cariban. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1–3 August.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Gisborne, Nikolas & Amanda Patten
    2011 Construction grammar and grammaticalization. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0008
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0008 [Google Scholar]
  82. Givón, Talmy
    1971 Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society71. 394–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 1979On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 2013 Constructionist approaches. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 2019Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Guillaume, Antoine & Spike Gildea
    (eds.) 2018 The evolution of argument coding patterns in South American languages. [Special Issue]. Journal of Historical Linguistics8(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Guirardello, Raquel & Spike Gildea
    2011 Construction Grammar and syntactic reconstruction: Internal Reconstruction of main clause grammar in Trumai (Isolate). Paper presented at theworkshop “Diachronic Construction Grammar”, 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Universidad de la Rioja, Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  91. Haspelmath, Martin
    2004 On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. InOlga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.03has [Google Scholar]
  92. Heine, Bernd
    1994 Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. InWilliam Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 255–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.109.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.109.08hei [Google Scholar]
  93. 2003 On degrammaticalization. InBarry Blake & Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th international conference on historical linguistics, 163–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.237.12hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.237.12hei [Google Scholar]
  94. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemayer
    1991Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Heltoft, Lars
    2011 Word order change as grammaticalisation. InJens Nørgård-Sørensen, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler (eds.), Connecting grammaticalisation, 171–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.65.06wor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.65.06wor [Google Scholar]
  96. Hilpert, Martin
    2008 Where did this future construction come from? A case study of Swedish komma att V. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 107–131. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211757.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757.107 [Google Scholar]
  97. 2013Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  98. 2018 Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. InEvie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  99. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?InWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes, 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  100. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  101. Israel, Michael
    1996 The way constructions grow. InAdele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Janda, Richard D. & Brian D. Joseph
    2003 On language, change, and language change – Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. InBrian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch [Google Scholar]
  103. Johnson, Cynthia A., Peter Alexander Kerkhof, Leonid Kulikov, Esther Le Mair & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2019 Argument structure, conceptual metaphor and semantic change: How to succeed in Indo-European without really trying. Diachronica36(4). 463–508. 10.1075/dia.00014.bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.00014.bar [Google Scholar]
  104. Joseph, Brian
    2004 Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. InOlga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.59.04jos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.59.04jos [Google Scholar]
  105. 2011 Grammaticalization: A general critique. InHeike Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 193–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0016 [Google Scholar]
  106. Joseph, Brian D.
    2021 Some observations on what grammaticalization is and is not. Cadernos De Linguística2(1), e343. ( 10.25189/2675‑4916.2021.v2.n1.id343)
    https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2021.v2.n1.id343 [Google Scholar]
  107. Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
    1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y? construction. Language75(1). 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  108. Kiparsky, Paul
    2012 Grammaticalization as optimization. InDianne Jonas, John Whitman, & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcome, 15–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Koehn, Edward & Sally Sharp Koehn
    1986 Apalai. InDesmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, Vol.11, 33–127. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110850819.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850819.33 [Google Scholar]
  110. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
    1965 The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes511. 55–71. (Reprinted in: Esquisses linguistiques II. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 38–541 1975) 10.1177/039219216501305105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/039219216501305105 [Google Scholar]
  111. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  112. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 1991Foundations of cognitive grammar II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  115. Lehmann, Christian
    1982/1995Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Köln: Universität zu Köln. Republished in 1995 byLincom, Münich.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 2002 New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. InIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.03leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.03leh [Google Scholar]
  117. Lindström, Jan & Camilla Wide
    2005 Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics6(2). 211–236. 10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin [Google Scholar]
  118. Michaelis, Laura A.
    2013 Sign-Based Construction Grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 133–152. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Michaelis, Laura A. & Josef Ruppenhofer
    2001Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Mithun, Marianne
    2008 The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language841. 69–119. 10.1353/lan.2008.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0054 [Google Scholar]
  121. Meillet, Antoine
    1912 L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia. Revue internationale de synthese scientifiqueVol.XII, noXXVI–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Narrog, Heiko
    2014 The grammaticalization chain of case function: Extension and reanalysis of case-marking vs. universals of grammaticalization. InSilvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds.), Perspectives on semantic roles, 69–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.106.03nar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.106.03nar [Google Scholar]
  123. Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine
    (eds.) 2011The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 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]
  125. Norde, Muriel
    2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  126. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow
    1994 Idioms. Language701. 491–538. 10.1353/lan.1994.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1994.0007 [Google Scholar]
  127. Roberts, Ian
    1993 A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica HistoricaXIII1. 219–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Rostila, Jouni
    2004 Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. InFred Karlsson (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Helsinki, January 7–9, 2004. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki. Available at: www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Rostila.pdf (last access2 November 2022).
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Sag, Ivan
    2012 Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. InHans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Smirnova, Elena
    2015 Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.03smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.03smi [Google Scholar]
  131. Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova
    (eds.) 2020Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  132. Spencer, Andrew
    2013Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679928.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679928.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  133. Steels, Luc
    (ed.) 2011Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  134. (ed.) 2012Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑34120‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34120-5 [Google Scholar]
  135. Timberlake, Alan
    1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. InCharles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑006
    https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-006 [Google Scholar]
  136. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2008 Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. InRegine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development – Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110205398.3.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205398.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  137. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2015 Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.02tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.02tra [Google Scholar]
  138. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine
    (eds.) 1991Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  140. Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde
    2013 Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences361. 32–46. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.018 [Google Scholar]
  141. Vázquez-González, Juan G. & Jóhanna Barðdal
    2019 Reconstructing the ditransitive construction for Proto-Germanic: Gothic, Old English and Old Norse-Icelandic. Folia Linguistica Historica40(2). 555–620. 10.1515/flih‑2019‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2019-0021 [Google Scholar]
  142. Wiemer, Björn & Walter Bisang
    2004 What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes. InWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 3–20. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.3 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error