Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 18:1 (2026) ► pp.136

References (50)
References
Bloem, J., Versloot, A., & Weerman, F. (2014). Applying automatically parsed corpora to the study of language variation. Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical papers, 1974–1984.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Verbal cluster order and processing complexity. Language Sciences, 601, 94–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouso, T. (2022). The English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional contamination. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 651, 13–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Corver, N. (2015). Syntax of Dutch: Verb and verb phrases. Volume 2. Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33(2), 261–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. (2015). Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 213–256). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & Rens, D. (2016). Het krijgen-passief en de werkwoordelijke eindgroep: Een diachrone voorstudie op basis van Delpher [The krijgen-passive and verb clusters: A diachronic preliminary study based on Delpher]. Studies van de Belgische Kring Voor Linguïstiek/Travaux Du Cercle Belge de Linguistique/Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 101, 1–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coussé, E. (2008). Motivaties voor volgordevariatie: Een diachrone studie van werkwoordvolgorde in het Nederlands [Motivations for word order variation: A diachronic study of verb order in Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation]. Ghent University.
De Schutter, G. (1989). Casussen, syntactische functietoerekening en gemarkeerdheid [Cases, syntactic function assignment and markedness]. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Sutter, G. (2005). Rood, groen, corpus! Een taalgebruiksgebaseerde analyse van woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen [Red, green, corpus! A usage-based analysis of word order variation in two-part verb clusters] [Doctoral dissertation]. KU Leuven.
(2007). Naar een corpusgebaseerde, cognitief-functionele verklaring van de woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen [Towards a corpus-based, cognitive-functional explanation of word order variation in two-part verb clusters]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 12(4), 302–330.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Sutter, G., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Regionale en stilistische effecten op de woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke eindgroepen [Regional and stylistic effects on word order in verb clusters]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 101, 97–128.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delaby, G., & Colleman, T. (2023). Volgordevariatie in groepen met receptief krijgen + voltooid deelwoord in de Nederlands Nederlandse krantentaal: Een synchroon en diachroon onderzoek [Word order variation in clusters with receptive krijgen + past participle in Netherlandic Dutch newspaper language: A synchronic and diachronic study]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 28(1), 1–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Nationale variatie bij het gebruik van de rode en groene volgorde met het receptieve hulpwerkwoord krijgen [National variation in the use of the red and green order with the receptive auxiliary verb krijgen]. Handelingen — Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor Taal- En Letterkunde En Geschiedenis, 761, 45–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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
(2014). Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses [Computer software].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 153–204). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. Martinus Nijhof.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Flach, S. (2022). A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In K. Krawczak, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Grygiel (Eds.), Analogy and contrast in language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 283–302). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Krijgen [To get]. In H. Bennis & W. van Lessen Kloeke (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands (pp. 65–72). Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2022). Construction Grammar. The structure of English. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. Wiley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landsbergen, F. (2009). Cultural evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary linguistics [Doctoral dissertation]. LOT Publications.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olthof, M., Westendorp, M., Bloem, J., & Weerman, F. (2017). Synchronic variation and diachronic change in Dutch two-verb clusters. Tijdschrift Voor Nederlandse Taal-En Letterkunde, 1(1), 34–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I. (2013). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch (pp. 219–247). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pardoen, J. (1991). De interpretatie van zinnen met de rode en de groene volgorde [The interpretation of sentences with the red and green order]. Forum Der Letteren, 32(1), 1–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van De Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van De Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2010). The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 139–166). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). “All that he endeavoured to prove was…”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In C. Robin & K. Ruth (Eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution (pp. 143–177). Kings College Publications.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
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Noord, G., Bouma, G., Van Eynde, F., De Kok, D., Van Der Linde, J., Schuurman, I., Sang, E. T. K., & Vandeghinste, V. (2013). Large scale syntactic annotation of written Dutch: Lassy. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch (pp. 147–164). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2002). From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 403–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue