Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories

Part IV - Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2025

Edited by

Merja Kytö and

Erik Smitterberg

Show author details

Merja Kytö: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Erik Smitterberg: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden

Book contents

Get access

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Documentation, Sources of Data and Modelling
, pp. 663 - 845

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009205443 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686CrossRef Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 900–919.Google Scholar

Baumann, Andreas and Ritt, Nikolaus. 2018. The basic reproductive ratio as a link between acquisition and change in phonotactics. Cognition 176: 174–183.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Berglund, Ylva. 2005. Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 253–275.Google Scholar

Bizzoni, Yuri, Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania, Menzel, Katrin, Krielke, Pauline and Teich, Elke. 2019. Grammar and meaning: analysing the topology of diachronic word embeddings. In Tahmasebi, Nina, Borin, Lars, Jatowt, Adam and Xu, Yang (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Computational Approaches to Historical Language Change. Florence: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 175–185.10.18653/v1/W19-4722CrossRef Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88.2: 269–304.Google Scholar

Bohmann, Axel. 2019. Variation in English Worldwide: Registers and Global Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108751339CrossRef Google Scholar

Danchev, Andrei and Kytö, Merja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 59–77.10.1515/9783110879599.59CrossRef Google Scholar

De Cuypere, L. 2015. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19: 1–26.10.1017/S1360674314000276CrossRef Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik and Van de Velde, Freek. 2017. Experimenting on the past: a case study on changing analysability in English ly-adverbs. English Language and Linguistics 21.2: 317–340.10.1017/S1360674317000168CrossRef Google Scholar

Denis, Derek and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2017. The changing future: competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22.3: 403–430.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fehringer, Carol and Corrigan, Karen. 2015. The rise of the going to future in Tyneside English: evidence for further grammaticalisation. English World-Wide 36.2: 198–227.Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren. 2021. Varying Abstractions: a conceptual vs. distributional view on prepositional polysemy. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6.1: 90. 1–28.Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren and Manjavacas, Enrique. 2021. Adjusting scope: a computational approach to case-driven research on semantic change. In Ehrmann, Maud, Karsdorp, Folgert, Wevers, Melvin, Andrews, Tara Lee, Burghardt, Manuel, Kestemont, Mike, Manjavacas, Enrique, Piotrowski, Michael and van Zundert, Joris J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Humanities Research 2021. Aachen: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 280–298.Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren and van de Pol, Nikki. 2016. Divide and conquer: the formation and functional dynamics of the modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20.2: 185–219.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine 27: 2865–2873.Google Scholar PubMed

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10.1: 95–125.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2021. Statistics for Linguistics with R. Third edition. Boston, MA and Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2022. How to use statistics in quantitative corpus analysis. In McCarthy, Michael and O’Keeffe, Anne (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Second edition. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 168–181.10.4324/9780367076399-13CrossRef Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. and Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: a bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 134–144.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1: 97–129.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griCrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2.2: 243–256.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.7CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2016. Quantitative approaches to diachronic corpus linguistics. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 36–53.10.1017/CBO9781139600231.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Which-hunting and the standard English relative clause. Language 91.4: 806–836.10.1353/lan.2015.0062CrossRef Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hosmer, David W. and Lemeshow, Stanley. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.10.1002/0471722146CrossRef Google Scholar

Jenset, Gard B. 2013. Mapping meaning with distributional methods: a diachronic corpus-based study of existential there. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3.2: 272–306.10.1075/jhl.3.2.04jenCrossRef Google Scholar

Jenset, Gard B. and McGillivray, Barbara. 2017. Quantitative Historical Linguistics. A Corpus Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, Leonard and Rousseeuw, Peter J.. 1990. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9780470316801CrossRef Google Scholar

Kauhanen, Henri and Walkden, George. 2018. Deriving the Constant Rate Effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36: 483–521.10.1007/s11049-017-9380-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Tove, Larsson, Plonsky, Luke and Hancock, Gregory R.. 2021. On the benefits of structural equation modeling for corpus linguists. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17.3: 683–714.Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2020. Conditional inference trees and random forests. In Paquot, Magali and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 611–643.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going-to-future in written English: a corpus-based investigation into language change in progress. In Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanisław (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1537–1543.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2012. Mechanisms of language change in a functional system. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2.1: 83–132.CrossRef Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14.1: 65–97.10.1515/cllt-2016-0014CrossRef Google Scholar

Petré, Peter and Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94.4: 867–901.Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk, Beuls, Katrien and Van de Velde, Freek. 2015. The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic: an agent-based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 5: 81–102.Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2022. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar

Sagi, Eyal, Kaufmann, Stefan and Clark, Brady. 2012. Tracing semantic change with Latent Semantic Analysis. In Allan, Kathryn and Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 161–183.Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg and Küchenhoff, Helmut. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24.3: 531–577.10.1515/cog-2013-0018CrossRef Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte and Hofmann, Klaus. 2021. Constructional competition and network reconfiguration: investigating sum(e) in Old, Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 25.1: 1–33.Google Scholar

Steels, Luc. 2016. Agent-based models for the emergence and evolution of grammar. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371.1701: 20150447.10.1098/rstb.2015.0447CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Collostructional analysis. In Trousdale, Graeme and Hoffmann, Thomas (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 290–306.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 209–243.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. ‘Be going to’ versus ‘will/shall’: does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31: 295–323.10.1177/0075424203257830CrossRef Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. About text frequencies in historical linguistics: disentangling environmental and grammatical change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12.1: 153–171.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali and Baayen, R. Harald. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24.2: 135–178.10.1017/S0954394512000129CrossRef Google Scholar

Tizón-Couto, David and Lorenz, David. 2021. Variables are valuable: making a case for deductive modeling. Linguistics 59.5: 1279–1309.10.1515/ling-2019-0050CrossRef Google Scholar

Torres-Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A.. 2009. The present of the English future: grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85: 321–354.Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek and Petré, Peter. 2020. Historical linguistics. In Adolphs, Svenja and Knight, Dawn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities. London: Routledge, pp. 328–359.Google Scholar

Winter, Bodo. 2020. Statistics for Linguists. An Introduction Using R. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Winter, Bodo and Wieling, Martijn. 2016. How to analyze linguistic change using mixed models, Growth Curve Analysis and Generalized Additive Modeling. Journal of Language Evolution 1.1: 7–18.10.1093/jole/lzv003CrossRef Google Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette and Szmrecsanyi., Benedikt 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30.3: 382–419.Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zimmermann, Richard. 2019. Studying semantic chain shifts with Word2Vec: FOOD>MEAT>FLESH. In Tahmasebi, Nina, Borin, Lars, Jatowt, Adam, and Xu, Yang (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Computational Approaches to Historical Language Change. Florence: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 23–28.10.18653/v1/W19-4703CrossRef Google Scholar

References

Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer. 2010. Variation in agreement: a lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120: 1109–1134.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.007CrossRef Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 1984. On the dating of raised empty subjects in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 461–465.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198240969.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2005. Changes in case marking in NP: from Old English to Middle English. In Amberber, Mengistu and de Hoop, Helen (eds.), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 223–249.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2016. The definite article: what happened with þe? In Vikner, Sten, Jørgensen, Henrik and van Gelderen, Elly (eds.), Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us. Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University, pp. 43–82.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2019. The definite article in Old English: evidence from Ælfric’s Grammar. In Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Hollmann, William B., Moore, Emma and van Bergen, Linda (eds.), Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–146.Google Scholar

Besten, Hans den and Edmondson, Jerold. 1983. The verbal complex in Continental West Germanic. In Abraham, Werner (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 155–216.10.1075/la.3.05besCrossRef Google Scholar

Biberauer, Theresa and Walkden, George. 2015. Introduction: changing views on syntactic change. In Biberauer, Theresa and Walkden, George (eds.), Syntax over Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul. 1997. How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Paper presented at The Institute of Phonetic Sciences 21, Paris.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida and Wechsler, Stephen. 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Second edition. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clark, Brady. 2004. A Stochastic Optimality Theory Approach to Syntactic Change. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Cole, Marcelle. 2017. Pronominal anaphoric strategies in the West Saxon dialect of Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21: 381–408.Google Scholar

Crisma, Paola. 2011. The emergence of the definite article in English: a contact-induced change? In Sleeman, Antonia Petronella and Perridon, Harry (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–192.Google Scholar

de Haas, Nynke and van Kemenade, Ans. 2008. The origins of the Northern Subject Rule. In Dossena, Marina, Dury, Richard and Gotti, Maurizio (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–130.Google Scholar

Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gelderen, Elly van. 2013. The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives. In Lohndal, Terje (ed.), In Search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195–218.10.1075/la.202.13gelCrossRef Google Scholar

Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb-second in English. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–106.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0005CrossRef Google Scholar

Haeberli, Eric. 2011. Looking high and low for NegP. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 116–141.Google Scholar

Haeberli, Eric and Ihsane, Tabea. 2022. The recategorization of modals in English: evidence from adverb placement. In Egedi, Barbara and Hegedűs, Veronika (eds.), Functional Heads across Time: Syntactic Reanalysis and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 136–158.Google Scholar

Holt, D. Eric (ed.). 2003. Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Ingham, Richard. 2013. Negation in the history of English. In Willis, David W. E., Lucas, Christopher and Breitbarth, Anne (eds.), The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Vol. I: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–150.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in Language. With Special Reference to English. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Reprint, 1993, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, with an introduction by James D. McCawley.Google Scholar

Jones, Charles. 1988. Grammatical Gender in English, 950 to 1250. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Kauhanen, Henri and Walkden, George. 2017. Deriving the Constant Rate Effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 483–521.Google Scholar

Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Forris.Google Scholar

Kemenade, Ans van. 1992. Structural factors in the history of English modals. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 287–309.Google Scholar

Kemenade, Ans van. 2011. Secondary negation and information structure organisation in the history of English. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin and Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 77–113.10.1515/9783110238617.77CrossRef Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: periphrastic do. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language Change and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–172.10.1075/cilt.52.09kroCrossRef Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony and Taylor, Ann. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–325.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian. 2017. Principles and Parameters. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian G. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 581–628.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou and van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Information structure and syntax in the history of English. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1475–1490.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou and van Kemenade, Ans. 2018. Syntax and the morphology of deixis: the loss of demonstratives and paratactic clause linking. In Coniglio, Marco, Murphy, Andrew, Schlachter, Eva and Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Atypical Demonstratives: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 127–160.Google Scholar

McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot, David W. (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–123.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0006CrossRef Google Scholar

Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. New York: Garland. Repr. by Routledge 2014.Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl Jesse and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford and Chicago: Center for the Study of Language and Information; University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Centre for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian and Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Introduction: parameters in minimalist theory. In Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, Roberts, Ian and Sheehan, Michelle (eds.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–57.Google Scholar

Struik, Tara and van Kemenade, Ans. 2020. On the givenness of OV word order: a (re)examination of OV/VO variation in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 24.1: 1–22.CrossRef Google Scholar

Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752995CrossRef Google Scholar

Watanabe, Akira. 2009. A parametric shift in the D-system in Early Middle English: relativization, articles, adjectival inflection, and indeterminates. In Crisma, Paola and Longobardi, Giuseppe (eds.), Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 358–374.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560547.003.0021CrossRef Google Scholar

Westergaard, Marit. 2009. Word order in Old and Middle English: the role of information structure and first language acquisition. Diachronica 26.1: 1–65.Google Scholar

Westergaard, Marit. 2017. Gradience and gradualness vs. abruptness. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian G. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 446–466.10.1017/9781107279070.022CrossRef Google Scholar

Wood, Johanna L. 2007. Demonstratives and possessives: from Old English to Present-Day English. In Stark, Elisabeth, Leiss, Elisabeth and Abraham, Werner (eds.), Nominal Determination: Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 339–361.Google Scholar

References

Behrens, Heike. 2017. The role of analogy in language acquisition. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–239.10.1017/9781316091746.010CrossRef Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Breban, Tine. 2010. English Adjectives of Comparison. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRef Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110252927CrossRef Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 285–314.Google Scholar

Britton, Derek. 2012. Degemination in English, with special reference to the Middle English Period. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, McCully, Christopher and Moore, Emma (eds.), Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–244.Google Scholar

Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis M.. 1992. Articulatory phonology. Phonetica 49: 155–180.Google Scholar PubMed

Butler, Christopher. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886CrossRef Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Vol. 2. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 145–167.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2007a. Diachronic linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 945–987.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2007b. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526CrossRef Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2015a. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139096768CrossRef Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2015b. Articulatory processing and frequency of use in sound change. In Honeybone and Salmons (eds.), pp. 467–484.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2015. Functional approaches to grammar. In Wright, James D. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Second edition. Vol. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 470–475.Google Scholar

Cuyckens, Hubert, D’hoedt, Frauke and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Variability in verb complementation in Late Modern English: finite vs. non-finite patterns. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–203.10.1017/CBO9781139507226.014CrossRef Google Scholar

Defour, Tine. 2007. A Diachronic Study of the Pragmatic Markers well and now. PhD thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12.1: 55–102.10.1017/S136067430700250XCrossRef Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2019. The motivated unmotivated. In Bech, Kristin and Möhlig-Falke, Ruth (eds.), Grammar Discourse Context. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 305–331.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, D’hoedt, Frauke, Fonteyn, Lauren and Van Goethem, Kristel. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29.2: 197–234.10.1515/cog-2016-0025CrossRef Google Scholar

Wit, De, Astrid, Peter Petré and Frank Brisard. 2020. Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics 56.3: 479–514.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2017. Usage-based linguistics. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-363?rskey=ivWwgv&result=2.Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik and van der Wurff, Wim. 2017. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139049559CrossRef Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2016. Semantic and pragmatic change. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 256–270.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236528.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart. 2000. Explaining grammaticalization (the standard way). Linguistics 38.4: 781–788.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59.4: 781–819.Google Scholar

Hall, Nancy. 2007. R-dissimilation in English. https://home.csulb.edu/~nhall2/dissimilation_paper.pdf.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael and Matthiessen, Christian. 2013. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Fourth edition. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203431269CrossRef Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37.6: 1043–1068.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject ‘want’ complements: economic vs. iconic motivation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 26: 41–69.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. From cognition to grammar. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–187.Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees and Lachlan Mackenzie, J.. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2015. Historical linguistics. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 346–366.10.1515/9783110292022-017CrossRef Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, P. Himmelmann, Nikolaus and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.10.1515/9783110197440.1.21CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds.). 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199232819.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hume, Elizabeth. 2001. Metathesis: formal and functional considerations. In Hume, Elizabeth, Smith, Norval and van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Structure and Segment Sequencing. Leiden: Holland Institute of Linguistics, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1.1: 91–110.10.1017/S136067430000037XCrossRef Google Scholar

Kang, Eunsoo. 2013. The perceptual R-metathesis in Middle English. Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language (Seoul National University) 11: 20–48.Google Scholar

Kemenade, Ans van. 2012. Rethinking the loss of verb second. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 822–834.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0067CrossRef Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_603353CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 139–169.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou. 2012. The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María-José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou and Dreschler, Gea. 2012. The loss of local anchoring. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 859–872.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0070CrossRef Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou and Komen, Erwin. 2012. Clefts as resolution strategies after the loss of a multifunctional first position. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 884–898.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0072CrossRef Google Scholar

McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166591CrossRef Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2007. Cognitive linguistics and functional linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 543–565.Google Scholar

Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 237–278.Google Scholar

Ohala, John J. 2003. Phonetics and historical phonology. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 669–686.Google Scholar

Petré, Peter. 2017. The extravagant progressive. English Language and Linguistics 21.2: 227–250.10.1017/S1360674317000107CrossRef Google Scholar

Phillips, Betty. 2006. Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230286610CrossRef Google Scholar

Purnell, Thomas and Raimy, Eric. 2015. Distinctive features, levels of representation, and historical phonology. In Honeybone and Salmons (eds.), pp. 522–544.Google Scholar

Ritt, Nikolaus. 2012. How to weaken one’s consonants, strengthen one’s vowels and remain English at the same time. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, McCully, Christopher and Moore, Emma (eds.), Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 213–231.Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265.Google Scholar

Schreier, Daniel. 2015. Historical phonology and koinéization. In Honeybone and Salmons (eds.), pp. 619–636.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena. 2006. Information structure and word order change: the passive as an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 360–391.10.1002/9780470757048.ch15CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Jeremy J. 2007. Sound Change and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth and Dasher, Richard. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth and König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–218.10.1075/tsl.19.1.10cloCrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Van der Auwera, Johan, Van Olmen, Daniël and Du Mon, Denies. 2015. Grammaticalization. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 634–650.Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166799CrossRef Google Scholar

References

Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne. 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88.2: 269–304.Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2021. How individuals change language. PLOS ONE 16.6: e0252582.10.1371/journal.pone.0252582CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: an instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 283–312.Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110252927CrossRef Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2017. Approaches to grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–623.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23.2–3: 113–161.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of Principles and Parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang and Vennenmann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 506–569.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33: 839–882.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2010. The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48.1: 1–48.Google Scholar

Croft, William and Cruse, Alan D.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: a semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21.S: 151–195.Google Scholar

Deutscher, Guy. 2005. The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind’s Greatest Invention. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar

Elsness, Johan. 1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110810264CrossRef Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2019. Cognitive Linguistics: A Complete Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474405232CrossRef Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501–538.10.2307/414531CrossRef Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga and van der Wurff, Wim. 2006. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–198.Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.2CrossRef Google Scholar

Gisborne, Nikolas and Patten, Amanda. 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–104.Google Scholar

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

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–101.10.1075/tsl.49.08heiCrossRef Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 575–601.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania and Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108982856CrossRef Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199227761.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoefler, Stefan and Smith, Andrew D. M.. 2009. The pre-linguistic basis of grammaticalisation: a unified approach to metaphor and reanalysis. Studies in Language 33.4: 886–909.10.1075/sl.33.4.03hoeCrossRef Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-Based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525CrossRef Google Scholar

Hurford, James R. 2012. The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23.2–3: 265–340.10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00023-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y construction. Language 75: 1–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Killie, Kristin. 2007. On the source(s) and grammaticalization of the Germanic -lik suffix. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108.4: 659–682.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195145113.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 13.51: 55–71.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko and Rhee, Seongha (eds.). 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1997. Be/have + past participle: the choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–85.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Larroque, Patrice. 2011. The grammaticalization of done in non-standard English. Anglophonia: French Journal of English Linguistics 15: 23–36.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar

Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49.2: 415–443.10.1515/ling.2011.013CrossRef Google Scholar

Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav and McEnery, Tony. 2017. The spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22.3: 319–344.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2011. Grammaticalization and corpus linguistics. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 239–250.Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12: 384–400.Google Scholar

Myers, Jay L. 2014. Fixin’ to: the emergence of an American quasi-modal. American Speech 89.1: 42–73.10.1215/00031283-2726395CrossRef Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nicolle, Steve. 2011. Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 401–412.Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk and van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. Revisiting be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English Studies 5: 599–623.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pagliuca, William (ed.). 1994. Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486326CrossRef Google Scholar

Rowley, Anthony. 1983. Das Präteritum in den heutigen deutschen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 50.2: 161–182.Google Scholar

Schwenter, Scott A. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–273.10.1075/pbns.35.16schCrossRef Google Scholar

Scott-Phillips, Thom. 2015. Speaking Our Minds: Why Human Communication Is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make It Special. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Smith, Andrew D. M. 2017. Grammaticalization theory. In Shackelford, Todd K. and Weekes-Shackelford, Viviana A. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Smith, Andrew D. M. and Hoefler, Stefan. 2015. The pivotal role of metaphor in the evolution of human language. In Dı́az Vera, Javier E. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy across Time and Cultures. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 123–139.Google Scholar

Smith, Andrew D. M. and Hoefler, Stefan. 2017. From metaphor to symbols and grammar: the cumulative cultural evolution of language. In Power, Camilla, Finnegan, Morna and Callan, Hilary (eds.), Human Origins: Contributions from Social Anthropology. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 153–179.Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.25CrossRef Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.1: 31–55.10.2307/414841CrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.10.1017/CBO9780511554469.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 624–647.10.1002/9780470756393.ch20CrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8.2: 295–309.10.1075/jhp.8.2.07cloCrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2006. Markers of futurity in Old English and the grammaticalization of shall and will. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 42: 165–178.Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2008. Will and shall as markers of modality and/or futurity in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 29: 125–143.Google Scholar

References

Alexander, Marc and Kay, Christian. 2018. ‘… all spirits, and are melted into air, thin air’: metaphorical connections in history of English. In Petré, Peter, Cuyckens, Hubert and D’hoedt, Frauke (eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Lexis and Text in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–76.10.1075/cilt.343.03aleCrossRef Google Scholar

Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Cognition in construction grammar: connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31.2: 309–337.10.1515/cog-2019-0023CrossRef Google Scholar

Anthonissen, Lynn and Petré, Peter. 2019. Grammaticalization and the linguistic individual: new avenues in lifespan research. Language and Aging Research (ed. Gerstenberg, Annette). Special issue of Linguistics Vanguard: n.p.10.1515/lingvan-2018-0037CrossRef Google Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 1977. Analogy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: the warp and woof of cognition. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 425–440.Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan D. 2007. Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan D. 2012. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 1–29.10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Barsalou, Lawrence. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.4: 577–660.Google Scholar PubMed

Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Network Analysis and Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110923223CrossRef Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2012a. The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 80–99.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2012b. Construction Grammar. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2 (HSK 34.2). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1631–1645.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2015. The linguistic fingerprints of authors and scribes: a medieval whodunnit. In Watts, Richard, Schreier, Daniel and Auer, Anita (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–181.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2021. Linguistic change across a lifetime: a historical microperspective. Intra-Individual Variation across Time and Space – Sociolinguistics Meets Psycholinguistics (eds. Pfenninger, Simone and Bülow, Lars). Special issue of Linguistics Vanguard: n.p.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander and Hoffmann, Thomas (eds.). 2017. Cognitive Approaches to the History of English. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 21.2.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander and Pentrel, Meike. 2015. Ælc þara þe þas min word gehierþ and þa wyrcþ … : psycholinguistic perspectives on early English. In Adams, Michael, Brinton, Laurel and Fulk, Robert D. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language VI: Evidence and Method in Histories of English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 249–276.10.1515/9783110345957.249CrossRef Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan. 2012. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette. 2009. Introduction: analogy in grammar. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–12.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Börgerding, Pia, Benen, Marie-Christine and Bergs, Alexander. 2020. Expecting the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in narratives. Anglistik 31.1: 129–153.10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/10CrossRef Google Scholar

Bratu, Christian. 2015. Literature. In Classen, Albrecht (ed.), Handbook of Medieval Culture. Fundamental Aspects and Conditions of the European Middle Ages. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 864–901.Google Scholar

Budts, Sara. 2022. A connectionist approach to analogy: on the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18.2: 337–364.10.1515/cllt-2019-0080CrossRef Google Scholar

Burnley, David. 1995. Scribes and hypertext. The Yearbook of English Studies 25: 41–62.10.2307/3508817CrossRef Google Scholar

Burridge, Kate and Bergs, Alexander. 2017. Understanding Language Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14: 261–290.10.1017/S0954394502143018CrossRef Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Diachronic linguistics. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 945–987.Google Scholar

Carstensen, Broder. 1959. Studien zur Syntax des Nomens, Pronomens und der Negation in den Paston Letters. Bochum–Langendreer: Pöppinghaus.Google Scholar

Casasanto, Daniel and Gijssels, Tom. 2014. What makes a metaphor an embodied metaphor? Linguistics Vanguard 1.1: 327–337.10.1515/lingvan-2014-1015CrossRef Google Scholar

Castaño, Emilia and Verdaguer, Isabel. 2018. Metonymies and metaphors of sadness in the Old English vocabulary. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5.2: 282–302.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia and Walker, Terry. 2001. Causal clauses in written and speech-related genres in Early Modern English. ICAME Journal 25: 31–64.Google Scholar

Coolidge, Frederick L., Noël Haidle, Miriam, Lombard, Marlize and Wynn, Thomas. 2016. Bridging theory and bow hunting: human cognitive evolution and archaeology. Antiquity 90.349: 219–228.10.15184/aqy.2015.139CrossRef Google Scholar

Coolidge, Frederick L. and Wynn, Thomas. 2005. Working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15: 5–26.10.1017/S0959774305000016CrossRef Google Scholar

Coolidge, Frederick L. and Wynn, Thomas. 2016. An introduction to cognitive archaeology. Current Directions in Psychological Science 25.6: 386–392.10.1177/0963721416657085CrossRef Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. Seven deadly sins in Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 27.4: 479–491.10.1515/cog-2016-0059CrossRef Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2017. Entrenchment effects in language change. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik and Fischer, Olga. 2017. The role of analogy in language change: supporting constructions. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240–268.10.1017/9781316091746.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: a corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19.3: 465–490.Google Scholar

Disney, Stephen J. 2009. The grammaticalisation of be going to. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 63–81.Google Scholar

Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. (Gothenburg Studies in English 2). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Fabiszak, Małgorzata. 1999. A semantic analysis of emotion terms in Old English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 24: 133–146.Google Scholar

Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward and Biber, Douglas. 1997. Relative markers in English: fact and fancy. In Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel and Schneider, Peter (eds.), From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, pp. 65–78.10.1163/9789004653634_009CrossRef Google Scholar

Gaeta, Livio. 2010. Analogical change. In Luraghi, Silvia and Bubenik, Vit (eds.), Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 147–160.Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk and Gevaert, Caroline. 2008. Hearts and (angry) minds in Old English. In Sharifian, Farzad, Dirven, René, Yu, Ning and Niemeier, Susanne (eds.), Culture, Body, and Language: Conceptualizations of Internal Body Organs across Cultures and Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 319–348.10.1515/9783110199109.4.319CrossRef Google Scholar

Gevaert, Caroline. 2001. Anger in Old and Middle English: a ‘hot’ topic? Belgian Essays on Language and Literature: 89–101.Google Scholar

Gick, Mary L. and Holyoak, Keith J.. 1980. Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 12: 306–355.Google Scholar

Gleason, Jean Berko. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14.2–3: 150–177.Google Scholar

Grund, Peter. 2007. From tongue to text: the transmission of the Salem witchcraft examination records. American Speech 82.2: 119–150.10.1215/00031283-2007-005CrossRef Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J. and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33.2–3: 61–83.10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hilpert, Martin. 2015. Historical linguistics. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 347–366.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Douglas and Sander, Emmanuel. 2013. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Itkonen, Esa. 2015. ANALOGY = SCHEMA = CONSTRUCTION = BLENDING = SEMPLATE. Paper presented at The Fifth Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition.Google Scholar

Janda, Laura. 2013. Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: an introduction. In Janda, Laura (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The Quantitative Turn. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–9.10.1515/9783110335255CrossRef Google Scholar

Jou, Jerwen and Harris, Richard J.. 1990. Event order versus syntactic structure in recall of adverbial complex sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19.1: 21–42.10.1007/BF01068183CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kanetani, Masaru. 2011. Analogy in Construction Grammar: the case of just because of X doesn’t mean Y. Tsukuba English Studies 29: 77–93.Google Scholar

Kay, Christian. 2023. Metaphors we liveD by. In The Scottish Corpus of Texts & Speech. Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Retrieved July 2023, from www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk/document/?documentid=4. n.p.Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1945. La nature des procès dits ‘analogiques’. Acta Linguistica 5: 15–37.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 2012. Corpus linguistics. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2 (HSK 34.2). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1509–1530.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja and Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: how ‘bad’ can ‘bad’ data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31.3: 221–248.10.1177/0075424203257260CrossRef Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1.1: 39–74.10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39CrossRef Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 2012. Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science 4.4: 773–785.10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.xCrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–91.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1994. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mańczak, Witold. 1958. Tendances générales des changements analogiques. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Martin, Luther. 2014. Introduction to the issue. Journal of Cognitive Historiography 1.1: 10–13.10.1558/jch.v1i1.10CrossRef Google Scholar

Mollin, Sandra. 2007. The Hansard hazard: gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora 2.2: 187–210.10.3366/cor.2007.2.2.187CrossRef Google Scholar

Moradi, Mohammad Reza and Pirzad Mashak, Shahrzad. 2013. A comparative and contrastive study of sadness conceptualization in Persian and English. English Linguistics Research 2.1: 107–112.Google Scholar

Muthukrishna, Michael, Henrich, Joseph and Slingerland, Edward. 2021. Psychology as a historical science. Annual Review of Psychology 72: 717–749.10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Neubauer, Simon, Hublin, Jean-Jacques and Gunz, Philipp. 2018. The evolution of modern human brain shape. Science Advances 4.1: 1–8.10.1126/sciadv.aao5961CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2012. Historical sociolinguistics. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2 (HSK 34.2). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1438–1457.Google Scholar

Newen, Albert, de Bruin, Leon and Gallagher, Shaun (eds.). 2018. The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Ogura, Mieko. 1993. The development of periphrastic do in English: a case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10.1: 51–85.Google Scholar

Pentrel, Meike. 2017. Connecting the present and the past: cognitive processing and the position of adverbial clauses in Samuel Pepys’s diary. English Language and Linguistics 21.2: 263–282.10.1017/S1360674317000120CrossRef Google Scholar

Petré, Peter. 2019. How constructions are born: the role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In Busse, Beatrix and Möhlig-Falke, Ruth (eds.), Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 157–192.10.1515/9783110596656-007CrossRef Google Scholar

Prideaux, Gary. 1989. Text data as evidence for language processing principles: the grammar of ordered events. Language Sciences 11.1: 27–42.Google Scholar

Prideaux, Gary and Baker, William. 1986. Strategies and Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Renfrew, Colin. 2007. Prehistory: The Making of the Human Mind. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar

Renfrew, Colin and Zubrow, Ezra B. W. (eds.). 1994. The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511598388CrossRef Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.). 2017. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg and Mantlik, Annette. 2015. Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from the usage profiles. Anglia 133.4: 583–623.Google Scholar

Slingerland, Edward and Chudek, Maciej. 2011. The prevalence of mind–body dualism in early China. Cognitive Science 35.5: 997–1007.Google Scholar PubMed

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2011. Argument structure: item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59.4: 369–386.10.1515/zaa-2011-0407CrossRef Google Scholar

Tattersall, Ian. 2010. Human evolution and cognition. Theory in Biosciences 129: 193–201.Google Scholar PubMed

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012. On the persistence of ambiguous linguistic contexts over time: implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In Mukherjee, Joybrato and Huber, Magnus (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 231–246.Google Scholar

Trim, Richard. 2007. Metaphor Networks. The Comparative Evolution of Figurative Language. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Verdaguer, Isabel and Castaño, Emilia. 2018. The metaphorical conceptualization of sadness in the Anglo-Saxon elegies. Journal of Literary Semantics 47.2: 85–102.Google Scholar

Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries. Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret. 1997. Kuryłowicz, analogical change, and Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 359–386.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.4.359CrossRef Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret. 2010. Introduction. In Winters, Tissari and Allan (eds.), pp. 3–30.Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret. 2020. Historical Linguistics: A Cognitive Grammar Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret, Tissari, Heli and Allan, Kathryn (eds.). 2010. Historical Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Wyld, Henry Cecil. 1920. A History of Modern Colloquial English. London: T. Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar

Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1997. Social Mindscapes. An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

References

Barðdal, Jóhanna and Gildea, Spike. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar: epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal et al. (eds.), pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte and Gildea, Spike (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211757CrossRef Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel and Walkden, George. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113.3: 363–382.10.1111/1467-968X.12068CrossRef Google Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2011. Quotations across the generations: a multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7: 59–92.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526CrossRef Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: a diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59.4: 387–410.Google Scholar

Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Olofsson, Joel (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.21CrossRef Google Scholar

Croft, William A. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2017. Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004336827CrossRef Google Scholar

Davies, Mark and Kim, Jong-Bok. 2019. Historical shifts with the into-causative construction in American English. Linguistics 57.1: 29–58.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele, Dekalo, Volodymyr and Czicza, Dániel. 2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: an item-driven usage-based approach. In Hilpert, Martin, Cappelle, Bert and Depraetere, Ilse (eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–122.10.1075/cal.32.04dieCrossRef Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 2019. A construction of independent means: the history of the way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics 23.3: 671–699.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501–538.10.2307/414531CrossRef Google Scholar

Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox: the emergence of the into-causative. In Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–67.Google Scholar

Flach, Susanne. 2021a. Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: a corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod+adv collocations. English Language and Linguistics 25.4: 743–765.Google Scholar

Flach, Susanne. 2021b. From movement into action to manner of causation: changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics 59.1: 247–283.10.1515/ling-2020-0269CrossRef Google Scholar

Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

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

Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7.5: 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

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

Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In Achard, Michel and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.7CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013a. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013b. Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42: 67–82.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26.1: 1–36.10.1515/cog-2014-0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2016. Change in modal meanings: another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames 8.1: 66–85.10.1075/cf.8.1.05hilCrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2017. Historical sociolinguistics and construction grammar: from mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In Säily, Tanja, Nurmi, Arja, Palander-Collin, Minna and Auer, Anita (eds.), Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–237.10.1075/ahs.7.09hilCrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Olofsson, Joel (eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Second edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004446793CrossRef Google Scholar

Höder, Steffen. 2018. Grammar is community-specific: background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In Boas, Hans C. and Höder, Steffen (eds.), Constructions in Contact. Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–70.10.1075/cal.24.02hodCrossRef Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2021. The Cognitive Foundation of Post-Colonial Englishes: Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108909730CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525CrossRef Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne and Gardner, Anne-Christine. 2017. Corpus-based approaches: watching English change. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96–130.Google Scholar

Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele E. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar

Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language 75.1: 1–33.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko and Rhee, Seongha. 2020. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Peña Cervel, M. Sandra (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–159.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Third edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_603353CrossRef Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: an integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15.1: 1–67.10.1515/cogl.2004.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Millar, Neil. 2009. Modal verbs in TIME: frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14.2: 191–220.10.1075/ijcl.14.2.03milCrossRef Google Scholar

Millar, Robert McColl. 2000. System Collapse, System Rebirth: The Demonstrative Systems of English 900–1350 and the Birth of the Definite Article. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14.2: 177–202.10.1075/fol.14.2.04noeCrossRef Google Scholar

Patten, Amanda L. 2010. Grammaticalization and the it-cleft construction. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–243.Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2020. Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 142–166.Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte. 2018. Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.). 2020. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27CrossRef Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan T.. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 209–243.Google Scholar

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

Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Turney, Peter D. and Pantel, Patrick. 2010. From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37: 141–188.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Takuto. 2010. Development and grammaticalization of be about to: an analysis of the OED quotations. In Imahayashi, Osamu, Nakao, Yoshiyuki and Ogura, Michiko (eds.), Aspects of the History of English Language and Literature. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 353–365.Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie, Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas and Siemund, Peter (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–281.10.1075/z.136.17wulCrossRef Google Scholar

References

Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Cognition in construction grammar: connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31: 309–337.10.1515/cog-2019-0023CrossRef Google Scholar

Auer, Peter. 2015. Reflections on Hermann Paul as a usage-based grammarian. In Auer, Peter and Murray, Robert W. (eds.), Hermann Paul’s Principles of Language History Revisited: Translations and Reflections. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 177–207.10.1515/9783110348842-010CrossRef Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike. 2017. The role of analogy in language processing and acquisition. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–239.Google Scholar

Beuls, Katrien and Steels, Luc. 2013. Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of grammatical agreement. PloS One 8.3: e58960.10.1371/journal.pone.0058960CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387.10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2000. The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129: 177–192.Google Scholar PubMed

Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44.Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The grammaticalization of small size nouns: reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics 35: 293–324.10.1177/0075424207307597CrossRef Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2012. New perspectives, theories and methods: grammaticalization. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics. Vol. II. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1558–1576.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1994. The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: the development of the conclusive perfect. In Stein, Dieter and Tieken Boon, Ingrid van Ostade, (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 135–170.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Budts, Sara. 2022. A connectionist approach to analogy: on the modal meaning of periphrastic DO in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18: 337–364.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Beckner, Clay. 2015. Language use, cognitive processes and linguistic change. In Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 503–518.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Moder, Carol L.. 2017. Chunking and changes in compositionality in context. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 148–170.Google Scholar

Chang, Franklin. 2008. Implicit learning as a mechanism of language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 115–122.10.1515/THLI.2008.009CrossRef Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Cieślicka, Anna. 2006. Literal salience in on-line processing of idiomatic expressions by second language learners. Second Language Research 22: 115–144.Google Scholar

Cintrón-Valentín, Myrna C. and Ellis, Nick C.. 2016. Salience in second language acquisition: physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1284. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01284.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Colaiori, Francesca and Tria, Francesca. 2020. A complex system approach to language evolution: the case of regular versus irregular verbs in English. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2: 118–126.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. Harlow: Longman Linguistic Library.Google Scholar

Croft, William and Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2004. Language, Mind and Brain. Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474466011CrossRef Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001CrossRef Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses: the interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28: 83–102.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik and Fischer, Olga. 2017. The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240–268.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2012. Bühler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte and Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–50.Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar, Dąbrowska, Ewa and Arppe, Antti. 2016. Machine meets man: evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models. Cognitive Linguistics 27: 1–33.10.1515/cog-2015-0101CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2006a. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27: 1–24.10.1093/applin/ami038CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2006b. Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics 27: 1–31.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2008. The dynamics of second language emergence: cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 41: 232–249.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2016. Salience, cognition, language complexity, and Complex Adaptive Systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38: 341–351.10.1017/S027226311600005XCrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2017a. Chunking in language usage, learning and change: I don’t know. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–147.10.1017/9781316091746.006CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2017b. Salience in language usage, learning and change. In Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin and Simone E. Pfenninger (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–92.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. and Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. Language emergence: implications for Applied Linguistics. Introduction to the Special Issue. Applied Linguistics 27: 558–589.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20: 29–62.Google Scholar

Felser, Claudia. 2017. Syntactic ambiguity in real-time language processing and diachronic change. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–291.10.1017/9781316091746.012CrossRef Google Scholar

Fernández, Eva M., de Souza, Ricardo A. and Carando, Agustina. 2017. Bilingual innovations: experimental evidence offers clues regarding the psycholinguistics of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20: 251–268.10.1017/S1366728916000924CrossRef Google Scholar

Field, John. 2008. Bricks or mortar: which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL Quarterly 42: 411–432.10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00139.xCrossRef Google Scholar

Filipović, Luna. 2020. Bilingual memory advantage: bilinguals use a common linguistic pattern as an aid to recall memory. International Journal of Bilingualism 24: 542–555.Google Scholar

Filipović, Luna and Hawkins, John A.. 2019. The Complex Adaptive System Principles model for bilingualism: language interactions within and across bilingual minds. International Journal of Bilingualism 23: 1223–1248.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga. 2008. On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32: 336–382.10.1075/sl.32.2.04fisCrossRef Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga. 2021. What role do iconicity and analogy play in grammaticalization? In Janda, Richard D., Joseph, Brian D. and Vance, Barbara S. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Vol. II. Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 314–342.Google Scholar

‘Five Graces Group’ (Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Jinyun, Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman, Tom Schoenemann, ). 2009. Language is a Complex Adaptive System. Position paper. Language Learning 59 (Supplement 1): 1–27.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre. 2003. Why we’re so smart. In Gentner, Dedre and Goldin-Meadow, Susan (eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 195–235.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre and Colhoun, Julie. 2010. Analogical processes in human thinking and learning. In Glatzeder, Britt, Goel, Vinod and von Müller, Albrecht (eds.), Towards a Theory of Thinking. Building Blocks for a Conceptual Framework. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 2011. The psychology of utterance processing. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–167.Google Scholar

Green, David W. 1998. Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 67–81.10.1017/S1366728998000133CrossRef Google Scholar

Grey, Sarah and Tagarelli, Kaitlyn M.. 2018. Psycholinguistic methods. In Phakiti, Aek, De Costa, Peter I., Plonsky, Luke and Starfield, Sue (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 286–312.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620553CrossRef Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2012. The drift of English toward invariable word order from a typological and Germanic perspective. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 622–632.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0053CrossRef Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative? Linguistics 39: 1041–1070.10.1515/ling.2001.041CrossRef Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2017. Frequencies in diachronic corpora and knowledge of language. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin and Correia Saavedra, David. 2016. The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: an experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 22: 357–380.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin and Correia Saavedra, David. 2017. Why are grammatical elements more evenly distributed than lexical elements? Assessing the roles of text frequency and semantic generality. Corpora 12: 369–392.10.3366/cor.2017.0125CrossRef Google Scholar

Hock, Hans H. 2003. Analogical change. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley, pp. 441–460.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. A Corpus-Based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hristov, Bozhil. 2019. Grammaticalising the Perfect and Explanations of Language Change. Have- and Be-Perfects in the History and Structure of English and Bulgarian. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2001. What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-constructions. Studies in Language 25: 49–88.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2014. The demise of the being to V construction. Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 167–187.10.1111/1467-968X.12035CrossRef Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2016. Error, feature, (incipient) change – or something else altogether? On the role of low-frequency deviant patterns for the description of Englishes. In Seoane, Elena and Suárez-Gómez, Cristina (eds.), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–60.Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian and Weatherholtz, Kodi. 2016. What the heck is salience? How predictive language processing contributes to sociolinguistic perception. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1115.Google Scholar

Jäger, Gerhard and Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 85–113.10.1515/THLI.2008.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaschak, Michael P., Kutta, Timothy J. and Schatschneider, Christopher. 2011. Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week. Memory and Cognition 39: 381–388.10.3758/s13421-010-0042-3CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kecskes, Istvan. 2011. Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 599–616.Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang. 1998. The contribution of second language acquisition research. Language Learning 48: 527–550.Google Scholar

Kootstra, Gerrit J. and Muysken, Pieter. 2019. Structural priming, levels of awareness, and agency in contact-induced language change. Languages 4: 65.10.3390/languages4030065CrossRef Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83: 344–387.10.1353/lan.2007.0082CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27: 590–619.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Levon, Erez and Fox, Susan. 2014. Social salience and the sociolinguistic monitor: a case study of ING and TH-fronting in Britain. Journal of English Linguistics 42: 185–217.Google Scholar

Lieberman, Erez, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Jackson, Joe, Tang, Tina and Nowak, Martin A.. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449: 713–716.10.1038/nature06137CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lieven, Elena. 2017. Developing language from usage: explaining errors. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 321–331.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 2017. Acquisition and learnability. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 381–400.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 1998. Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 199–227.10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.199CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mair, Christian. 2017. From priming and processing to frequency effects and grammaticalization? Contracted semi-modals in present-day English. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar

McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Language Typology 5:125–166.Google Scholar

McWhorter, John. 2002. The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des forms grammaticales. Scientia 12. Reprinted in Antoine Meillet, 1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Klincksieck/Champion, pp. 130–148.Google Scholar

Meyer, David E. and Schvaneveldt, Roger W.. 1971. Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. In Journal of Experimental Psychology 90: 227–234.Google Scholar PubMed

Moder, Carol Lynn. 2016. Begging the question: chunking, compositionality and language change. European Journal of English Studies 20.1: 35–46.Google Scholar

Müller, Natascha and Hulk, Aafke. 2001. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4: 1–21.Google Scholar

Neels, Jakob. 2020. Lifespan change in grammaticalisation as frequency-sensitive automation: William Faulkner and the let alone construction. Cognitive Linguistics 31: 339–365.10.1515/cog-2019-0020CrossRef Google Scholar

Paul, Herman. 1995 [1880]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tenth edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110929461CrossRef Google Scholar

Pavlenko, Aneta and Jarvis, Scott. 2002. Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics 23: 190–214.10.1093/applin/23.2.190CrossRef Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew and Syder, Frances H.. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W. (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman, pp. 191–225.Google Scholar

Perdue, Clive (ed.). 1993. Adult Language Acquisition: Crosslinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Petré, Peter, Anthonissen, Lynn, Budts, Sara, Manjavacas Arévalo, Enrique, Silva, Emma-Louise, Standing, William and Strik, Odile A. O.. 2019. Early Modern Multiloquent Authors (EMMA): designing a large-scale corpus of individuals’ languages. ICAME Journal 43: 83–122.10.2478/icame-2019-0004CrossRef Google Scholar

Petré, Peter and Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The real-time dynamics of individual and community in grammaticalization. Language 94: 867–901.Google Scholar

Pfenninger, Simone E. and Singleton, David. 2021. Is there a best age for second language learning? Evidence from across the lifespan. In Macaro, Ernesto and Woore, Robert (eds.), Debates in Second Language Education. London: Routledge, pp. 52–65.Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J. and Garrod, Simon. 2017. Priming and language change. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–190.Google Scholar

Rácz, Péter. 2013. Salience in Sociolinguistics: A Quantitative Approach. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–332.Google Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: a usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105–124.Google Scholar

Schleicher, August. 1861. Einige Beobachtungen an Kindern. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 2: 497–498.Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 1–27.10.1515/gcla-2015-0002CrossRef Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg and Günther, Franziska. 2016. Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1110.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110CrossRef Google Scholar

Schumann, John H. 1978. The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Schweinberger, Martin. 2021. On the waning of forms – a corpus-based analysis of decline and loss in adjective amplification. In Kranich, Svenja and Breban, Tine (eds.), Lost in Change: Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–260.10.1075/slcs.218.08schCrossRef Google Scholar

Serrano-Losada, Mario. 2018. Analogy-driven change: the emergence and development of mirative end up constructions in American English. English Language and Linguistics 24: 97–121.10.1017/S1360674318000266CrossRef Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. A Corpus Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. 2013. Innovation and contact: the role of adults (and children). In Schreier, Daniel and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–297.10.1017/CBO9780511740060.016CrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2017. Low salience as an enabling factor in morphosyntactic change. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–110.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2004. New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 273–290.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273CrossRef Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret E. 2010. Introduction: on the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In Winters, Margaret E., Tissari, Heli and Allan, Kathryn (eds.), Historical Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519772CrossRef Google Scholar

Zarcone, Alessandra, van Schijndel, Marten, Vogels, Jorrig and Demberg, Vera. 2016. Salience and attention in surprisal-based accounts of language processing. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 844.10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00844CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Zipf, George K. 1929. Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 15: 1–95.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Book contents

Part IV - Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories

Information

Access options

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

References

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

Accessibility Information

Content Navigation

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Visual Accessibility

Structural and Technical Features

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive