Aarts, B. (1998). English binominal noun phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96, 117–58.Google Scholar

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Abraham, W. (1998). Ein Schatz von einem Kind: Zur Pradikatsyntax binominaler Nominalkonstituenten. Deutsche Sprache, 26, 337–47.Google Scholar

Adamson, S. (2000). A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., and Stein, D., eds., Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–66.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Akmajian, A. and Lehrer, A. (1976). NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis, 2(4), 395–413.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L., and Stavrou, M. (2007). Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Anttila, R. [1972] (1989). Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Arnon, I. and Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.Google Scholar

Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, 29, 554–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, F. O. (1980). A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: Appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies, 61, 357–66.Google Scholar

Bache, C. (2000). Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, N. (2014). Occultus Liber. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.Google Scholar

Barðdal, J. and Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, J, Smirnova, E, Sommerer, L, and Gildea, Spike, eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (1998). When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 65–86.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (2004). Adjectives, compounds and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 3(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, M. J. and Plag, I. (2012). Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 485–520.Google Scholar

Bell, M. J. and Plag, I. (2013). Informativity and analogy in English compound stress. Word Structure, 6(2), 129–55.Google Scholar

Bennett, W. A. (1976). One type of expressive noun phrase in French. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 5(2), 20–1.Google Scholar

Bennis, H., Corver, N., and den Dikken, M. (1998). Predication in nominal phrases. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1, 85–117.Google Scholar

Bergen, B. K. and Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, J. O. and Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–90.Google Scholar

Bergen, B. K. & Chang, N. (2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–90.Google Scholar

Bergs, A. (2008). Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables? In Stierstorfer, K., ed., Anglistentag 2007 in Münster: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaft Verlag Trier, pp. 269–76.Google Scholar

Bergs, A. (2016). Response to Traugott. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 126–30.Google Scholar

Bisang, W. (1998). Grammaticalization and language contact: Constructions and positions. In Giacalone Ramat, A. and Hopper, P., eds., The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bisang, W. (2011). Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Hold & Co.Google Scholar

Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Boas, H. C. (2008a). Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 113–44.Google Scholar

Boas, H. C. (2008b). Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 57, 17–48.Google Scholar

Boas, , Hans, C. (2021) Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics. In Wen, X. and Taylor, J. R., eds., Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 43–77.Google Scholar

Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1967). Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua, 18, 1–34.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, K., Vincent, N., and Walken, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–82.Google Scholar

Bouchard, D. (2002). Adjectives, Number and Interfaces: Why Languages Vary. Amsterdam/Boston/London: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Boye, K. and Harder, P. (2012). A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

Breban, T. (2010). English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Breban, T. and Davidse, K. (2016). A functional-cognitive analysis of the order of adjectival modifiers in the English NP. Paper presented at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) Conference, Konstanz, February 24–26, 2016.Google Scholar

Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brems, L. (2004). Measure noun constructions: Degrees of delexicalization and grammaticalization. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B., eds., Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 23). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 249–65.Google Scholar

Brems, L. (2007). The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics, 35, 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brems, L. (2010). Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics, 14(1), 83–109.Google Scholar

Brems, L. (2011). Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Brems, L. (2012). The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic case study of heap(s) and lot(s). Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(2), 202–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brems, L. and Davidse, K. (2010). The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change. English Studies, 91, 180–202.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brugman, C. (1981). The story of ‘over.’ MA thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Brugman, C. and Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Small, S. L., Cottrell, G. W., and Tanenhaus, M. K., eds., Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology, and Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 477–508.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M., Bermudez, N., Fung, V., Edwards, L., and Vargas, R. (2007). Hella nor cal or totally so cal? The perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics, 35, 325–52.Google Scholar

Budts, S. and Petré, P. (2020) Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 318–51.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. (2008). Interpersonal meaning in the noun phrase. In Rijkhoff, J. and García Velasco, D., eds., The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–62.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. (2009). The lexical constructional model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In Butler, C. S. and Martín Arista, J., eds., Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 117–52.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-García, F. (2005). Situation FDG in functional–cognitive space: An initial study. In Mackenzie, L. J. and Gómez-González, M., eds., Studies in Functional Discourse Grammar. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 109–58.Google Scholar

Butler, C. S. and Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cali Abokor, A. (1987). The Camel in Somali Oral Traditions. Trans. Axmed Arten Xange. Motala: Motala Grafiska.Google Scholar

Capelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions Special, 1, 1–26.Google Scholar

Cave, D. (2007). Four Trails to Valor: From Ancient Footprints to Modern Battlefields, a Journey of Four Peoples. Santa Fe, NM: Sunstone Press.Google Scholar

Chesterman, A. (1991). On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English and Finish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (1994). On the evidence for partial N movement in the Romance DP. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.–Y, Rizzi, L., and Zanuttini, R., eds., Paths Towards a Universal Grammar. Georgetown: Georgetown University, pp.85–110.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2010). The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. (2014). The semantic classification of adjectives: A view from syntax. Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 35(1), 1–30.Google Scholar

Colleman, T. (2011). Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 387–410.Google Scholar

Corver, N. (1998). Predicative movement in pseudo partitive constructions. In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C., eds., Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–58.Google Scholar

Creesy, C. (ed.) (1986). Princeton Alumni Weekly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, September 30.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, W. (2013). Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–32.Google Scholar

Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curme, G. O. (1914). The development of the analytic genitive in Germanic, Part II. Modern Philology, 11(3), 289–313.Google Scholar

Curme, G. O. (1931). A Grammar of the English Language, Vol. III: Syntax. Boston, MA: Heath and Co.Google Scholar

Davidse, K. (2009). Complete and sort of: From identifying to intensifying? Transactions of the Philological Society, 107(3), 262–92.Google Scholar

Davidse, K. and Breban, T. (2019). A cognitive-functional approach to the order of adjectives in the English noun phrase. Linguistics, 57(2), 327–71.Google Scholar

Davidse, K., Brems, L., and De Smedt, L. (2008). Type noun uses in the English NP: A case of right to left layering. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(2), 139–68.Google Scholar

Davidse, K. and Ghesquière, L. (2016). Content-purport, content-substance and structure: Focusing mere and me rely. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 48(1), 85–109.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2010–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). http://corpus.byu.edu/now/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2018). iWeb Corpus: 14 Billion Words, 1990–2015. http://corpus.byu.edu/iweb.Google Scholar

De Clerck, B. and Colleman, T. (2013). From noun to intensifier: Massa and massa’s in Flemish varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 36, 147–60.Google Scholar

De Smet, H. (2009). Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–55.Google Scholar

Deacon, T. W. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Deacon, T. W. (2003). Universal grammar and semiotic constraints. In Christiansen, M. H. and Kirby, S., eds., Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–39.Google Scholar

Den Dikken, M. (1998). Predicate inversion in the DP. In Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C., eds., Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–58.Google Scholar

Den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Denison, D. (2002). History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki. 7 September 2002.Google Scholar

Denison, D. (2005). The grammaticalisations of sort of, kind of, and type of in English. Paper presented at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 3, University of Santiago de Compostela, July 17–20, 2005.Google Scholar

Denison, D. (2011). The construction of SKT. Second Vigo-Newcastle-Santiago-Leuven International Workshop on the Structure of the Noun Phrase in English (NP2), Newcastle upon Tyne, September 15–16, 2011.Google Scholar

Dewell, R. B. (1994). Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diessel, H. (2011). Review of Language, Usage and Cognition by Bybee, Joan. Language, 87(4), 830–44.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-Based Construction Grammar. In Dąbrowska, E. and Divjak, D., eds., The Cognitive Linguistic Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 296–321.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Diewald, G. (2011). Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 450–61.Google Scholar

Diewald, G. (2015). Review of Traugott, Elizabeth Closs; Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 137, 108–21.Google Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland Linguistic Series.Google Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1997a). The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part I: The Structure of the Clause, 2nd ed., ed. Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dik, S. C. (1997b). The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part II: Complex and Derived Constructions, ed. Hengeveld, K.. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in Language: Memory, Attention and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (2010). Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and Beyssade, C. (2012). Redefining Indefinites. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. and Rooryck, J. (2003). Generalizing over quantitative and qualitative constructions. In Coene, M. and D’hulst, Y., eds., From NP to DP: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 277–96.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., and O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Evans, V. and Green, M. C. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, N. and Wilkins, D. (1998). The Knowing Ear: An Australian Test of Universal Claims about the Semantic Structure of Sensory Verbs and Their Extension into the Domain of Cognition. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar

Everaert, M. (1992). Nogmaals: “Een schat van een kind.” In Bennis, H. and de Vries, J. W., eds., De binnenbouw van het Nederlands: Een bundel artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar

Feist, J. (2009). Premodifier order in English nominal phrases: A semantic account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(2), 301–40.Google Scholar

Feist, J. (2012). Premodifiers in English: Their Structure and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ferris, C. (1993). The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. (2000). Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, and D. Stein, eds., Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 149–69.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. (2008). On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 32(2), 336–82.Google Scholar

Fischer, O. (2011). Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar

Foolen, A. (2004). Expressive binominal NPs in Germanic and Romance languages. In Radden, G. and Panther, K. U., eds., Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar

Fried, M. (2010). Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change. In Van Linden, A., Davidse, K., and Verstraete, J.–C., eds., Grammaticalization and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.191–224.Google Scholar

Fried, M. and Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–78.Google Scholar

Gallagher, L. (2009). Snowboarding: Learning to Ride from All-Mountain to Park and Pipe. Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers Books.Google Scholar

García Velasco, D. (2013). Degree words in English: A Functional Discourse Grammar account. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 67, 79–96.Google Scholar

García Velasco, D. and Hengeveld, K. (2002). Do we need predicate frames? In Mairal, R. and Pérez, Q., eds., New Perspectives on Argument Structure. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 95–123.Google Scholar

Genee, I., Keizer, E., and García Velasco, D. (2016). The lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics, 54(5), 887–906.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, L. (2009). From determining to emphasizing meanings: The adjectives of specificity. Folia Linguistica, 43(2), 311–43.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, L. (2014). The Directionality of (Inter)Subjectification in the English Noun Phrase. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ghesquiere, L. (2017). Intensification and focusing: The case of “pure(ly)” and “mere(ly).” In Napoli, M. and Ravetto, M., eds., Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, L. and Davidse, K. (2011). The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying usages of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 251–77.Google Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, A. (1998). Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat, A. and Hopper, P., eds., The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–27.Google Scholar

Giegerich, H. J. (2004). Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics, 8, 1–24.Google Scholar

Giegerich, H. J. (2005). Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon–syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics, 41(3), 571–91.Google Scholar

Giegerich, H. J. (2009). The English compound stress myth. Word Structure, 2(1), 1–17.Google Scholar

Giomi, R. (2017). The interaction of components in a Functional Discourse Grammar account of grammaticalization. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 39–74.Google Scholar

Giomi, R. (2020). Shifting structures, contexts and meanings: A Functional Discourse Grammar account of grammaticalization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Lisbon.Google Scholar

Gisborne, N. and Patten, A. (2011). Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–104.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1984). Syntax, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-Based Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 210–24.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2009a). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2009b). Constructions at work. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 201–24.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Gonzálvez-García, F. and Butler, C. S. (2006). Mapping functional-cognitive space. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 39–96.Google Scholar

Grady, J., Oakley, T. and Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In Steen, G. J. and Gibbs, R. W., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Amsterdam, 1997. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar

Grestenberger, L. (2013). Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 18(2), 93–138.Google Scholar

Gries, S. (2009). Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Guisti, G. (1991). The categorical status of quantified nominals. Linguistische Berichte, 136, 439–52.Google Scholar

Guisti, G. (1997). The categorial status of determiners. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar

Gunkel, L. and Zifonun, G. (2009). Classifying modifiers in common names. Word Structure, 2(2), 205–18.Google Scholar

Haas, F. (2007). The development of English each other: Grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both? English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 31–50.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Harder, P. and Boye, K. (2011). Grammaticalization and functional linguistics. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–68.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22, 315–51.Google Scholar

Hay, J. (2002). From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language, 78(3), 527–55.Google Scholar

Heine, B. (1997b). Grammaticalization theory and its relevance to African linguistics. In Herbert, R. K., ed., African Linguistics at the Crossroads: Papers from Kwaluseni. Cologne: Köppe, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–101.Google Scholar

Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In Janda, R. D. and Joseph, B. D., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 573–601.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2002). On the evolution of grammatical forms. In Wray, A., ed., The Transition to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 376–97.Google Scholar

Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (2010). Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 401–23.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, K. (2017). A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 13–38.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2016). Reflections on the lexicon in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics, 54(5), 1135–61.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H. (2017). A functional perspective on the grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality. In Hengeveld, K., Narrog, H., and Olbertz, H., eds., The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality: A Functional Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Hetzron, R. (1978). On the relative order of adjectives. In Seiler, H., ed., Language Universals: Papers from the Conference Held at Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, October 3–8, 1976. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 165–84.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Andersson, P. & Coussé, E., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. (2021). Lecture 3: Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., and Wiemer, B., eds., What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, T. (2004). Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuition. In Lindquist, H. and Mair, C., eds., Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 171–210.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Construction Grammar introduction. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Honselaar, W. and Olbertz, H. (2016). The use of moeten without an infinitive: A case of degrammaticalization?. In Bannink, A. and Honselaar, W., eds., From Variation to Iconicity: Festschrift for Olga Fischer on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Pegasus, pp. 185–201.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B., eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. [1993] (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. (2008). Word grammar and Construction Grammar. In Trousdale, G. and Gisborne, N., eds., Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257–302.Google Scholar

Hudson, R. A. (2017). Pied-piping in cognition. Journal of Linguistics. Online ed. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-linguistics/article/piedpiping-in-cognition-1/FAFC2CCF34F7DE3B4C2B797498C6096D (June 19, 2017).Google Scholar

Iannuzzi, J. N. (2008). Condemned. Xlibris.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jensen, B. and Chalkley, T. (2021). A History Lover’s Guide to Baltimore. Charleston, SC: The History Press.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Jurafsky, D. (1992). An on-line computation model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and the use of linguistic knowledge. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. and Partee, B. (1995). Prototype Theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 212–191.Google Scholar

Kay, P. (1990). Even. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13(1), 59–111.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2004). Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinction. English Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 323–50.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2005). What to do with those fools of a crew? In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemskijk. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 300–9.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2007a). The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2007b). The lexical-grammatical dichotomy in Functional Discourse Grammar. ALFA: Revista de Linguística, 51(2), 35–56.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2011). English preforms: An alternative account. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 303–34.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2015). A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2016). Idiomatic expressions in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics, 54(5), 981–1016.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2017). English partitives in Functional Discourse Grammar: Types and constraints. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–40.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. (2020). Noun phrases. In Aarts, B., Bowie, J., and Popova, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–57.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. and ten Wolde, E. (forthcoming). Of birds of prey and men of honour: head-classifier constructions in English. In L. Gardelle, E. Mignot, and J. Neveux, eds., Nouns and the Morphosyntax/Semantics Interface. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Keizer, E. and Van Staden, M. (2009). Introduction. Linguistics, 47(4), 799–824.Google Scholar

Kendall, B. J. et al. (1880). A Treatise on the Horse and His Diseases. Claremont, NH: Claremont Manufacturing Co.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–81.Google Scholar

Kim, J. B. and Sells, P. (2015). English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 51, 41–73.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. (2012). Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, D. and Whitman, J., eds., Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–52.Google Scholar

Knopp, L. (2012). What the River Carries: Encounters with the Mississippi, Missouri, and Platte. Columbia/London: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar

König, E. (1991). The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 291–325.Google Scholar

Kruisinga, E. (1932). A Handbook of Present-Day English Part II: English Accidence and Syntax 2, 5th ed. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Laenzlinger, C. (2005). French adjective ordering: Perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua, 115, 645–89.Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 5–38.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, Imagine, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd ed. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2010). A lot of quantifiers. In Rice, S. and Newman, J., eds., Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Larson, R. K. (1999). Semantics of adjectival modification. Lectures presented at the Dutch National Graduate School (LOT), Amsterdam. http://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/~rlarson/LOT(99)/Contents.htmld/index.html (June 19, 2017).Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. [1982] (2002). Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar

Lehmann, C. (2020). Univerbation. Folia Linguistica Historica, 41, 205–52.Google Scholar

Lehrer, A. (1986). English classifier constructions. Lingua, 68(2–3), 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Leys, O. (1997). ‘Ein Engel von (einer) Frau’. Emtionalität als konstruktionale Bedeutung. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86, 27–52.Google Scholar

Lieberman, M. and Sproat, R. (1992). The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Sag, I. A. and Szabolcsi, A., eds., Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 131–82.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (2011). Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–49.Google Scholar

Löbel, E. (1989). Q as a functional category. In Schmidt, C., E. Löbe,l and Bhatt, C., eds., Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–58.Google Scholar

Löbel, E. (2001). Classifiers and semi-lexicality: Functional and semantic selection. In Corver, N. and Riemsdijk, H., eds., Semi-lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–71.Google Scholar

Lorenz, G. (2002). Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in modern English. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 143–61.Google Scholar

Lundskær-Nielsen, T. (1993). Prepositions in Old and Middle English: A Study of Prepositional Syntax and the Semantics of At, In and On in some Old and Middle English Texts. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maiorana, S. and Pitoniak, S. (2005). Slices of Orange: Great Games and Performers in Syracuse University Sports History. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar

Margerie, H. (2011). Grammaticalising constructions: To death as a peripheral degree modifier. Folia Linguistica Historica, 45(32), 115–47.Google Scholar

Masini, F. (2016). Binominal constructions in Italian of the N1-di-N2 type: Towards a typology of Light Noun Constructions. Language Sciences, 53, 99–113.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (2014). The Positions of Adjectives in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McCawley, J. D. (1987). A case of syntactic mimicry. In Dirven, R. and Fried, V., eds., Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 459–70.Google Scholar

McCawley, J. D. (1988). The Syntactic Phenomena of English. 2 vols. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

McGregor, W. B. (1997). Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. (2010). Sign-based Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–58.Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Making the case for Construction Grammar. In Boas, H. C. and Sag, I., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 31–67.Google Scholar

Michaelis, L. A. (2013). Sign-based construction grammar. In Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar

Mortley, R. (1973). The theme of silence in Clement of Alexandria. Journal of Theological Studies, 24(1), 197–202.Google Scholar

Morzycki, M. (2016). Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, T. F. (2016). A Middle English Syntax: Parts of Speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication Theory: A Case Study for Indexing Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. (1991). But, Only, Just: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Noёl, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14(2), 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Norde, M., De Clerck, B. and Colleman, T. (2014). The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., and Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 207–50.Google Scholar

Nuyts, J. (2011). Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind: A cognitive-functional perspective. In Brdar, M., Gries, S. Th., and Fuchs, M., eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar

Olbertz, H. (2016). Lexical auxiliaries in Spanish: How and why? Linguistics, 54(5), 947–79.Google Scholar

Olsen, S. (2000). Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte, 181, 55–69.Google Scholar

Paardekooper, P. C. (1956). Een schat van een kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 49, 93–9.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. (1997). Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. (2000). Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In Bermúdez, R., Denison, D., Hogg, R., and McCully, C., eds., Generative Theory and Corpus Studies, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 233–58.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 47–65.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–43.Google Scholar

Partee, B. H. (2010). Privative adjectives: subsective plus coercion. In Bäuerle, R., Reyle, U., and Zimmermann, T. E., eds., Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp. Cambridge, MA: Emerald Group, pp. 273–85.Google Scholar

Partington, A. (1993). Corpus evidence of language change: The case of the intensifier. In Baker, M., Tognini-Bonelli, F., and Tognini-Bonelli, E., eds., Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–92.Google Scholar

Payne, J. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Noun and noun phrases. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–524.Google Scholar

Payne, J., Pullum, G. K., Scholz, B. C., and Berlage, E. (2013). Anaphoric one and its implications. Language, 89(4), 794–829.Google Scholar

Pérez Quintero, M. J. (2013). Grammaticalization vs lexicalization: The Functional Discourse Grammar view. Estudios Inglese, 67, 97–122.Google Scholar

Pins, R. (2018). How to Kill an Elephant: Eighteen Months to Save the Planet. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.Google Scholar

Plag, I. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics, 10(1), 143–72.Google Scholar

Plag, I. (2010). Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 29(2), 243–82.Google Scholar

Plag, I., Kunter, G., and Lappe, S. (2007). Testing hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based investigation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 199–232.Google Scholar

Plag, I., Kunter, G., Lappe, S., and Braun, M. (2008). The roles of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language, 84(4), 760–94.Google Scholar

Portero Muñoz, C. (2013). Adjective-Noun sequences at the crossroads between morphology and syntax: An FDG perspective. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 67, 123–40.Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, J. (1995) The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ralli, A. and Stavrou, M. (1998). Morphology–syntax interface: A–N compounds vs A–N constructs in Modern Greek. In Booij, G. and Van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 243–64.Google Scholar

Rijkhoff, J. (2002). The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, A. (2014). English genitive Variation: The state of the art. Genitive Variation in English, 18(2), 215–62.Google Scholar

Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (2011). Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6, 1–42.Google Scholar

Ruiz De Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. and Mairal Usón, R. (2006). Levels of semantic representation: Where lexicon and grammar meet. Interlingüística, 17, 26–47.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A. (2001). Dimensions of natural language locality. Unpublished paper presented at the Eight Annual Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. and Sag, I., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 69–202.Google Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Schlücker, B. and Plag, I. (2011). Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics, 121(9), 1539–51.Google Scholar

Schmid, H. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, C. J. (2011). Culture, rap music, “bitch,” and the development of the censorship frame. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(1), 36–56.Google Scholar

Scontras, G., Degen, J., and Goodman, N. D. (2017). Subjectivity predicts adjective ordering preferences. Open Mind, 1(1), 53–66.Google Scholar

Scott, G. J. (1998). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 8, 59–89.Google Scholar

Scott, G. J. (2002). Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In Cinque, G., ed., Functional Structure in DP and IP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–120.Google Scholar

Seiler, H. (1978). Determination: A functional dimension for interlanguage comparison. In Seiler, H., ed., Language Universals: Papers from the Conference Held at Gummersbach/ Cologne,German, October 3–8, 1976. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 301–28.Google Scholar

Selkirk, E. (1977). Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 285–316.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumpertz, J. J. and Levinson, S., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar

Smirnova, E. and Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the noted and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar

Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English: A constructionalist approach. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Sommerer, L. (2020). Why we avoid the “Multiple Inheritance” issue in usage-based Cognitive Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 320–31.Google Scholar

Sproat, R. and Shih, C. (1988). Prenominal adjective ordering in English and Mandarin. In Belvins, J. and Carter, J., eds., Proceedings of NELS 18. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts, pp. 465–89.Google Scholar

Sproat, R. and Shih, C. (1991). The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R., eds., Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 565–93.Google Scholar

Steels, L. (2011). Introducing Fluid Construction Grammar. In Steels, L., ed., Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar

Stemberger, J. R. and MacWhinney, B. (1988). Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M., eds., Theoretical Morphology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–16.Google Scholar

Stirling, L. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Deixis and anaphora. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1449–564.Google Scholar

Sweester, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tayler, A. and Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, J. R. (2004). The ecology of constructions. In Radden, G. and Panther, K.–U., eds., Studies in Linguistic Motivation. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 49–73.Google Scholar

Ten Wolde, E. (2019). Linear vs. hierarchical: Two accounts of premodification in the of-binominal noun phrase. Linguistics, 57(2), 283–326.Google Scholar

Ten Wolde, E. and Keizer, E. (2016). Structure and substance in Functional Discourse Grammar: The case of the binominal noun phrase. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 48(1), 134–57.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Torrent, T. T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., and Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 173–212.Google Scholar

Trask, R. L. (2000). The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y., eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–71.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Wright, S. M. and Stein, D., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. and Janda, R., eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 624–47.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2006). The semantic development of scalar focus modifier. In Kemenade, A. and Bettelou, L., eds., The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 335–59.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–57.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2008a). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 23–45.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2008b). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Eckardt, R., Jäger, G., and Veenstra, T., eds., Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 219–50.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2011). Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2015). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., and Gildea, S., eds., Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–40.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2016). Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 98–125.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. (2018). Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Pons Bordería, S. and Loureda Lamas, O., eds., New Insights into the Grammaticalization of Discourse Markers. Leiden: Brill, pp. 17–50.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Trousdale, G. (2012). Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., and Mortelmans, T., eds., Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–94.Google Scholar

Trousdale, G. (2013). Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies of Language, 37(3), 491–514.Google Scholar

Trueswell, R. (2009). Attributive adjectives and nominal templates. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 525–33.Google Scholar

Van Caspel, P. P. J. (1970). Een schat van een (niet meer zo jong) kind. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 63, 280–87.Google Scholar

Van de Velde, F. (2007). Interpersonal modification in the English noun phrase. Functions of Language, 14, 203–30.Google Scholar

Van de Velde, F. (2009). The emergence of modification patterns in the Dutch noun phrase. Linguistics, 47(4), 1021–49.Google Scholar

Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., and Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 141–80.Google Scholar

Van der Auwera, J. (2002). More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G., eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar

Van der Auwera, J., Van Olmen, D., and Du Mon, D. (2015). Grammaticalization. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 634–50.Google Scholar

Van Goethem, K. and De Smet, H. (2014). How nouns turn into adjectives: The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast, 14(2), 189–214.Google Scholar

Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The edocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, 1–48.Google Scholar

Van ValinJr., R. (2005). Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Valin Jr, Van., R. and LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Villalba, X. and Bartra-Kaufmann, A. (2010). Predicate focus fronting in the Spanish determiner phrase. Lingua, 120(4), 819–49.Google Scholar

Von Eye, A. (2002). Configural Frequency Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Vos, R. (1999). A grammar of partitive constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Vuillaume, M., Marillier, J. F., and Behr, I. (1993). Dieser Schuft von einem Hausmeister. Überlegungen zu den morphosyntaktischen und semantischen Eigenschaften von Strukturen nach dem Muster “N-von-N.” In Vuillaullle, M., Marillier, J. F., and Behr, I., eds., Studien zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalgruppe. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 167–84.Google Scholar

Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Zehentner, E. and Traugott, E.C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E., eds., Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–212.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. (1985). Heads. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 1–29.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (2004–5) A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER 2). CQPweb Main Page (lancs.ac.uk)Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–2015 (COCA). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2010–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/now/. Davies, M. (2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2017). Early English Books Online (EEBO). Part of the SAMUELS project. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2018). iWeb Corpus: 14 Billion Words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/iweb.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. (2000). Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Kroch, A., Santorini, B., and Delfs, L. (2004). Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2015. Web. Accessed April–May 2017.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (2004–5) A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER 2). CQPweb Main Page (lancs.ac.uk)Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990–2015 (COCA). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2010–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/now/. Davies, M. (2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2017). Early English Books Online (EEBO). Part of the SAMUELS project. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/eebo/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2018). iWeb Corpus: 14 Billion Words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/iweb.Google Scholar

Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. (2000). Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

Kroch, A., Santorini, B., and Delfs, L. (2004). Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st ed. (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar

OED Online. Oxford University Press, June 2015. Web. Accessed April–May 2017.Google Scholar