Cover not available

Article published In: Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 121149

References (38)
References
Algeo, J. (1995). Having a look at the expanded predicate. In B. Aarts & Ch. F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in Contemporary English: Theory and description (pp. 203–217). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2006). Predicting the productivity of argument structure constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 321, 467–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2011). The grammaticalization of complex predicates. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 556–569). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J. (Eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2020). What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DUDEN (2016). Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. Dudenverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P. (1999). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Das Wort. Verlag J.B. Metzler. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, A. (2020). Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon. Forschungsgeschichtlicher Blick auf Funktionsverbgefüge. In S. De Knop & M. Hermann (Eds.), Funktionsverbgefüge im Fokus (pp. 15–38). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helbig, G. (1979). Probleme der Beschreibung von Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 16(2), 273–284.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heringer, H. J. (1968). Die Opposition von „kommen“ und „bringen“ als Funktionsverben. Schwann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. (2002a). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (ASSidUE, 9).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002b). New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 321, 152–187.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leiss, E. (1992). Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polenz, Peter von. (1987). Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes Vorschläge zur Satzsemantischen Lexikographie. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 151, 169–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rösch, O. (1994). Untersuchungen zu passivwertigen Funktionsverbgefügen im Deutschen der Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zur funktionalen Valenzgrammatik. Helmut Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–35). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2015). Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–106). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. & Sommerer, L. (2020). The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 2–42). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48(2), 557–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E. & Vanderbauwhede, G. (Eds.). (2018). Category change from a constructional perspective. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, J. (2001). Verbonominale Konstruktionen, Funktionsverbgefüge. Vom Sinn und Unsinn eines Untersuchungsgegenstandes. Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Polenz, P. (2009). Funktionsverben, Funktionsverbgefüge und Verwandtes. Vorschläge zur satzsemantischen Lexikografie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 15(2), 169–189.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you ‘have a drink’ when you can’t ‘*have an eat’? Language, 581, 753–799. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeschel, A. (2008). Funktionsverbgefüge als Idiomverbände. In A. Stefanowitsch & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik: von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 263–278). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Fleischhauer, Jens
2025. Light verb constructions and the Principle of No Synonymy – A case study on German stehen unter-LVCs. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 13:1  pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Fleissner, Fabian
2025.  132133How to Get into Containers. In Dynamics at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface,  pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Ruf, Regina & Elena Smirnova
2025.  165Mit Hilfe von Kreativität?. In Dynamics at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface,  pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena
2025. Recent Changes in the Notion of Grammaticalization and the Rise of Alternative Concepts. Histoire Épistémologie Langage 47-1  pp. 263 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue