Aarts, Bas. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28:first person–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia. 1999. Literary language. In Lass, ed., 539–653.

Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 39–66.CrossRef

Aertsen, Henk. 1992. Chaucer's Boece: A syntactic and lexical analysis. In Rissanen, Ihalainen, Nevalainen, and Taavitsainen, eds., 671–687.

Aijmer, Karin. 1996a. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. (Studies in Language and Linguistics.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1996b. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen, eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1–47. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 99.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2004. The semantic path from modality to aspect: Be able to in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 57–78.CrossRef

Akimoto, Minoji. 1989. A Study of Verb-Nominal Structures in English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar

Algeo, John. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F., eds., The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description, 203–217. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, Andrew S. 1995. Regrammaticalization and degrammaticalization of the inchoative suffix. In Andersen, ed., 1–8.

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. On doing as you please. In Jucker, Andreas H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 275–308. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 35.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 1997. The origins of the “group genitive” in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95:111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2003. Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English. English Language and Linguistics 7:first person–28.Google Scholar

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2000. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 4th edn.

Andersen, Henning. 1987. From auxiliary to desinence. In Harris, Martin and Ramat, Paolo, eds., Historical Development of Auxiliaries, 21–51. (Trends in Linguistics; Studies and Monographs, 35.) Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Henning, ed. 1995. Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, 33–47. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 124.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Andersen, Henning, ed., Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, 225–248. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 219.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985a. Typological distinctions in word formation. In Shopen, ed., Vol. III, 3–56.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985b. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, ed., Vol. III, 150–201.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 62.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel's revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language 69:68–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 1989 [1972]. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2nd edn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnovick, Leslie K. 1999. Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 68.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 1.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1980. Contextuals. Language 56:744–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds. 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4 vols.Google Scholar

Aston, Guy and Burnard, Lou. 1998. The BNC Handbook Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. (Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Axmaker, Shelly, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen, eds. 1988. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Probabalistic approaches to morphology. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, eds., Probabilistic Linguistics, 229–287. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, A Bradford Book.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72:69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Philip and Syea, Anand, eds. 1996. Changing Meanings, Changing Functions: Papers Relating to Grammaticalization in Contact Languages. (Westminster Creolistics Series, 2.) London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio, ed. 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. (Topics in English Linguistics, 30.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1978. On lexicalization (neither a lexicalist nor a transformationalist be). Archivum Linguisticum 9:third person–14.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1992. Lexicalization and level ordering. Linguistics 30:561–568.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Productivity. In Asher and Simpson, eds., Vol. VI, 3354–3357.

Benveniste, Emile. 1971a [1958]. Delocutive verbs. In Benveniste 1971c, 239–246. (Orig. publ. in Hatcher, A. G. and Selig, K. L., eds., Studia Philologica et Litteraria in Honorem L. Spitzer, 57–63, Bern, 1958.)Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1971b [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Benveniste 1971c [1966], 223–230. (Originally publ. in Journal de psychologie 55: 267ff., 1958.)

Benveniste, Emile. 1971c [1966]. Problems in General Linguistics, trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. (Miami Linguistics Series, 8.) Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Orig. publ. as Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1966.)Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). (Topics in English Linguistics, 51.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berman, Ruth A. and Slobin, Dan I.. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Beths, Frank. 1999. The history of dare and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37:1069–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhat, D. N. S. 2000. Word classes and sentential functions. In Vogel and Comrie, eds., 47–63.

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In Rissanen et al., eds., 688–704.

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

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1970. On classifying semantic features. In Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl Erich, eds., Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, 27–50. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 43.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1993. The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature second person:101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, eds., Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. II, 1596–1608. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 20.2.) Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas. 2003. Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. In Eckardt, Regine, Heusinger, Klaus, and Schwarze, Christoph, eds., Words in Time: Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View, 38–65. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 143.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter, eds. 1999. Historical Semantics and Cognition. (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 13.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blom, Corrien and Booij, Geert. 2003. The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: A case study in grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50:61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32:45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum first person:first person–14.Google Scholar

Booij, Gert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, 16.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra, and Manning, Christopher D.. 2002. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Hong Kong, 13–82. Stanford: CSLI Publications and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 49.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996a. Attitudes toward increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English. Journal of English Linguistics 24:186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996b. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. (Topics in English Linguistics, 19.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics second person:177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J., ed. 2001. Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 215.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the “late” use of temporal adverbs. In Fanago, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, and Pérez-Guerra, Javier, eds., English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000, 67–97. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 223.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2004. Subject clitics in English: A case of degrammaticalization? In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 227–256.CrossRef

Brinton, Laurel J. In press. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma, eds., Methods of Historical Pragmatics: Recovering Speaker Meaning and Reader Inference. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef

Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji, eds. 1999. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 47.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. and Dieter Stein. 1995. Functional renewal. In Andersen, ed., 33–47.

Bruyn, Adrienne. 1996. On identifying instances of grammaticalization in Creole languages. In Baker and Syea, eds., 29–46.

Burridge, Kate. 1998. From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: The curious case of Pennsylvania German wotte. In Hogg, Richard M. and Bergen, Linda, eds., Historical Linguistics 1995, Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vol. II. Germanic Linguistics, 19–31. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 162.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Burridge, Kate. 2002. Changes within Pennsylvania German grammar as enactments of Anabaptist world view. In Enfield, N. J., ed., Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, 207–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, trans. and eds. Trauth, Gregory and Kazzazi, Kerstin. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. (Typological Studies in Language, 9.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Hammond and Noonan, eds., 119–141.

Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In Pagliuca, ed., 235–252.

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 602–623.

Bybee, Joan L. and Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13:51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, eds. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. (Typological Studies in Language, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, eds., Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 109–122. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 48.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I, 285–299.

Campbell, Lyle. 2001a. What's wrong with grammaticalization? In Campbell, ed., 113–161.

Campbell, Lyle, ed. 2001b. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Language Sciences 23, Numbers 2–3.

Campbell, Lyle and Mithun, Marianne, eds. 1979. The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Cannon, Garland. 1987. Historical Change and English Word-Formation. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Childs, G. Tucker. 1994. African ideophones. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John J., eds., Sound Symbolism, 178–204. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax.) New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-Based Approach (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 32.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Brady Z. 2004. Early English clause structure change and stochastic optimality theory setting. In Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberley, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding Conversations, 343–369. (Topics in English Linguistics, 45.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Eve V. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55:767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claudi, Ulrike. 1994. Word order change as category change: The Mande case. In Pagliuca, ed., 191–231.

Claudi, Ulrike and Heine, Bernd. 1986. On the metaphorical basis of grammar. Studies in Language 10:297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael G. 1994. Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, 2.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville D. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface. Language 63:299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, et al. University of Helsinki. Available in International Computer Archives of Modern English.Google Scholar

Cowie, Anthony Paul and Mackin, Ronald. 1993 [1975]. Oxford Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. London: Oxford University Press. (Previously publ. as Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. I: Verbs with Prepositions & Particles.)Google Scholar

Cowie, Claire. 1995. Grammaticalization and the snowball effect. Language and Communication 15:181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1995. Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71:490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William, Denning, Keith, and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds. 1990. Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday. (Typological Studies in Language, 20.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2003. Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35:1069–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. and Nowak, Andrzej. 2003. Dynamical Grammar: Minimalism, Acquisition, and Change. (Foundations of Syntax, 2.) New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-Based Study of Derivation. (Topics in English Linguistics, 20.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen, eds. 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. (Studies in Language, Companion Series, 42.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2 vols.Google Scholar

DeGraff, Michel, ed. 1999. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Groodt, Sarah. 2003. Unidirectionality in grammaticalization: The development of concessive subordinating conjunctions with ob- in German. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIV:193–204.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1985a. The origins of completive up in English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86:37–61.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1985b. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 66:189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. (Longman Linguistics Library.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In Brinton, ed., 119–144.

Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Reanalysis vs. grammaticalization: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21:151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2000. Paolo, Antonette, ed. Toronto: Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto. (http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec/.)Google Scholar

Dictionnaire Robert. 1992. Dictionnaire historique de la langue Française. Rey, Alain, ed. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. 1982. Where have all the Adjectives Gone? And other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 107.) Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donner, Morton. 1991. Adverb form in Middle English. English Studies 72:first person–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Yesterday's affixes as today's clitics: A case study in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 67–81.CrossRef

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42:third person–10.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. (Language in Society, 27.) Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. (RoutledgeCurzon Asian Linguistics Series.) London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Enger, Hans-Olaf. 2002. The story of Scandinavian -s(t) retold: Grammaticalising a clitic to a derivational affix. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIII:79–105.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba' and you know. Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap, 76–93. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology. New Series, 10.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild; with Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. (Mouton Grammar Library, 15.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas D. and Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception. Language 76:546–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. Types of lexical information. In Kiefer, F., ed., Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 109–137. (Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series, 10.) Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul., Michaelis, Laura A., and Sag, Ivan A.. 2003. Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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 64:501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, and Stein, Dieter, eds. 2000. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. (Studies in Language, Companion Series, 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. Coalitions and the investigation of social influence in linguistic history. European Journal of English Studies 4:265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1976. Cultural and Linguistics Factors in Word Formation: An Integrated Approach to the Development of the Suffix -age. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 86.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 36.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association 6:167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabelentz, Georg von. 1901 [1891]. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherige Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar

Gelderen, Elly. 1996. The reanalysis of grammatical prepositions in Middle English. Studia Linguistica 50:106–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelderen, Elly. 1997. Verbal Agreement and the Grammar behind its “Breakdown”: Minimalist Feature Checking. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 364.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, Anna. 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, eds., 107–127.

Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Hopper, Paul J., eds. 1998. The Limits of Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 37.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gildea, Spike, ed. 1999. Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in English, 43.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist's fieldtrip. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 394–415. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Li, Charles N., ed., Word Order and Word Order Change, 47–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1982. Tense-aspect-modality: The creole prototype and beyond. In Hopper, Paul J., ed., Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics, 115–162. (Typological Studies in Language, 1.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II, 257–310.

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

Görlach, Manfred. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1999. Regional and social variation. In Lass, ed., 459–538.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. The last stages of grammatical elements: Contractive and expansive desemanticization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I, 301–314.

Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith, eds. 1978. Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 4 vols.Google Scholar

Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Guilbert, Louis. 1975. La créativité lexicale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar

Hagège, Claude. 1993. The Language Builder: An Essay on the Human Signature in Linguistic Morphogenesis. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 94.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language 56:515–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59:781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, ed., 3–28.

Hale, Mark. 1998. Diachronic syntax. Syntax first person:first person–18.Google Scholar

Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, eds. 1988. Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hancock, Ian F. 1980. Lexical expansion in Creole languages. In Highfield, Arnold and Valdman, Albert, eds., Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, 63–88. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 74.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1992. Grammaticalization theory and heads in morphology. In Aronoff, Mark, ed., Morphology Now, 69–82. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?Studies in Language 22:315–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999a. Are there principles of grammatical change?Journal of Linguistics 35:579–595. (Review of Lightfoot 1999.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999b. Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics 37:1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2000a. Why can't we talk to each other?Lingua 110:235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2000b. The relevance of extravagance: A reply to Bart Geurts. Linguistics 38:789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. (Understanding Language Series.) London: Arnold and New York: Oxford University 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, 17–44. (Typological Studies in Language, 59.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

HCET. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Diachronic Part. 1993. Compiled by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, Minna Palander-Collin, et al. Available in International Computer Archives of Modern English.

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 83–101.

Heine, Bernd. 2003a. Grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 575–601.

Heine, Bernd. 2003b. On degrammaticalization. In Blake, Barry J. and Burridge, Kate, eds., Historical Linguistics 2001. Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 165–179. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 237.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Heine, Bernd, Güldemann, Tom, Kilian-Katz, Christa, Lessau, Donald A., Roberg, Heinz, Schladt, Mathias, and Stolz, Thomas. 1993. Conceptual Shift: A Lexicon of Grammaticalization Processes in African Languages. (Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere, 34/35.) University of Cologne.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar

Helftoft, Lars. 1996. Paradigmatic structure, word order and grammaticalization. In Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Fortescue, Michael, Harder, Peter, Helftoft, Lars, and Jakobsen, Lisbeth Falster, eds., Content, Expression and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar, 469–494. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 29.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verb: The Evidence from some Old and Early Middle English Texts. (Annales Universitatis Turkensis, Ser. B., 160.) Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1994. On phrasal verbs in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, ed., 129–140.

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn, eds., What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, 21–42. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 158.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hock, Hans Henrich and Joseph, Brian D.. 1996. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship: An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 93.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1988. Emergent grammar. In Tomasello, Michael, ed., The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 155–173. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1990. Where do words come from? In Croft, Denning, and Kemmer, eds., 151–160.

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I, 17–35.

Hopper, Paul J. 1994. Phonogenesis. In Pagliuca, ed., 29–45.

Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. The iconicity of “noun” and “verb”. In Haiman, John, ed., Iconicity in Syntax, 151–183. (Typological Studies in Language, 6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2nd revised edn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 2001 [1989]. A Natural History of Negation. (The David Hunter Series.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2nd edn.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

International Computer Archives of Modern English. International Computer Archives of Modern English. 1999. Compiled by Knut Holland, Anne Lindebjerg, and Jorn Thunestvedt. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Center for the Humanities, CD-ROM, 2nd edn.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. (Current Studies in Linguistics, 8.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. (Current Studies in Linguistics, 18.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 28.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1959]. Boas' view of grammatical meaning. Selected Writings, Vol. II, Word and Language, 489–496. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1980. On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of Old English nominal case inflections and the Middle English reanalysis of -es as his. In Traugott, Labrum, and Shepherd, eds., 243–252.CrossRef

Janda, Richard D. 1981. A case of liberation from morphology into syntax: The fate of the English genitive-marked –(e)s. In Johns, Brenda B. and Strong, David R., eds., Syntactic Change, 59–114. (Natural Language Studies.) Ann Arbor: Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1995. From agreement affix to subject “clitic” – and bound root: -mos > -nos vs. (–)nos(–) and nos-otros in New Mexican and other regional Spanish dialects. In Dainora, Audra, Hemphill, Rachel, Luka, Barbara, Need, Barbara, and Pargman, Sheri, eds., CLS Parasession on Clitics: Papers from the Thirty-First Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 118–139. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. In Campbell, ed., 265–340.

Janda, Richard D. and Brian D. Joseph. 2003. On language, change, and language change – Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 3–180.

Japanese and Korean Linguistics. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Jeffers, Robert J. and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1980. The evolution of clitics. In Traugott, Labrum, and Shepherd, eds., 221–231.

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1961 [1909–1941]. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: George Allen and Unwin, and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard, 7 vols.Google Scholar

Jones, Michael. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., ed. 1986. Studies in Language Change. (Working Papers in Linguistics, 34.) Columbus: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2003. Morphologization from syntax. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 472–492.

Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In Hammond and Noonan, eds., 193–210.

Joseph, Brian D. and Richard, D. Janda, eds. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.) Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H., ed. 1995. Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 35.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. Online. Bibliography of Historical Pragmatics. http://www. es.unizh.ch/ahjucker/HistPrag.htm.

Kaplan, Robert B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16:first person–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. (Studienreihe Englisch, 14.) Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann-Bagel GmbH.Google Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter. 1986. The problem of productivity in word formation. Linguistics 24:585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In Richard, M. Hogg, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. I, The Beginnings to 1066, 290–408. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter, ed. 1994. Studies in Early Modern English. (Topics in English Linguistics, 13.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter. 1994. Typological differences between English and German morphology and their causes. In Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre, and Westvik, Olaf Jansen, eds., Language Change and Language Structures: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective, 135–157. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 75.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Katz, Jerrold J. and Fodor, Jerry A.. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39:170–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kawabata, Tomohiro. 2003. On the development of considering: The prepositional, conjunctive and adverbial usages. In Studies in Modern English (The Twentieth Anniversary Publication of the Modern English Association), 139–152. Tokyo: Eichosha.Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand of Language, trans. Nerlich, Brigitte. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kemenade, Ans. 1999. Functional categories, morphosyntactic change, grammaticalization. Linguistics 37: 997–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Killie, Kristin. 2000. Stative adverbs in English: A study of adverbial productivity and orientation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, 171–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1992. Analogy. In Bright, William, ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Vol. I, 56–61. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, eds., Clause Structure and Language Change, 140–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Klausenburger, Jurgen. 2002. Grammaticalization within a theory of morphocentricity. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 31–43.

Koch, Harold. 1996. Reconstruction in morphology. In Durie, Mark and Ross, Malcolm, eds., The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change, 218–263. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koch, Peter. 1999. TREE and FRUIT. A cognitive-onomasiological approach. Studi di Linguistica Italiana Teorica ed Applicata 28:331–347.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd and König, Ekkehard. 1992. Categorial reanalysis: The case of deverbal prepositions. Linguistics 30:671–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kövekses, Zoltán and Radden, Günter. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9:37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, eds., The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 699–729. (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.) Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, Anthony, John Myhill, and Susan Pintzuk. 1982. Understanding do. In Tuite, K., Schneider, Robinson, and Chametzky, Robert, eds., Papers from the Eighteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 282–294. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred 1998. British English is developing a new discourse marker, innit? A study in lexicalisation based on social, regional and stylistic variation. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 23:145–197.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. (Topics in English Linguistics, 32.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques second person:38–54. (Originally publ. in Diogenes 1965:55–71.)Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki, 3rd edn.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Negative attraction and negative concord. Chapter IV, Language in the Inner City: Studies in Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts (1640–1740). 1999. Available in International Computer Archives of Modern English.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Li, ed., 57–139.

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

Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics first person:5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Losing control: Grammaticalization, subjectification, and transparency. In Blank and Koch, eds., 147–175.

Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26:79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lass, Roger, ed. 1999. The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. III 1476–1776. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lazzeroni, Romano. 1998. Divagazioni sulla degrammaticalizzazione. In Bernini, Giuliano, Cuzzolini, Pierluigi, and Molinelli, Piera, eds., Ars Linguistica, Studi Offerti a Paolo Ramat, 275–283. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Lee, Hanjung. 2001. Optimization in argument expression and interpretation: A unified approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1981 [1974]. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2nd edn.Google Scholar

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

Lehmann, Christian. 1989. Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42:11–19.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1990. Towards lexical typology. In Croft, Denning, and Kemmer, eds., 161–185.

Lehmann, Christian. 1992. Word order change by grammaticalization. In Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter, eds., Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change, 395–416. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 61.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1993. Theoretical implications of grammaticalization phenomena. In Foley, William A., ed., The Role of Theory in Language Description, 315–340. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 69.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 1.) München and Newcastle: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Synsemantika. In Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, eds., Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 1251–1266. (Handbücher der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 9/2.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 1–18.

Lessau, Donald A. 1994. A Dictionary of Grammaticalization (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung, 21.) Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 3 vols.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meaning: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N., ed. 1977. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I, 37–80.

Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 23.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. (Maryland Lectures in Language and Cognition, 1.) Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian, eds. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 13.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindström, Therese Å. M. 2004. The history of the concept of grammaticalisation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sheffield.

Lipka, Leonhard. 1992. Lexicalization and institutionalization in English and German or: Piefke, Wendehals, smog, perestroika, AIDS, etc. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 40:101–111.Google Scholar

Lipka, Leonhard. 1994. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Asher and Simpson, eds., Vol. IV, 2164–2167.

Lipka, Leonhard. 2002 [1990]. English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics & Word-Formation. (Narr Studienbücher.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 3rd revised edn. of An Outline of English Lexicology.Google Scholar

Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. On the directionality of grammaticalization. Sprachtypologische Universal-Forschungen (STUF) 51:355–365.Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2 vols.Google Scholar

McArthur, Tom. 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. In Darden, Bill J., Bailey, Charles-James N., and Davison, Alice, eds., Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

McElhinney, Bonnie. 1992. The interaction of phonology, syntax, and semantics in language change: The history of modal contraction in English. In Canakis, Costas P., Chan, Grace P., and Denton, Jeannette Marshall, eds., Papers from the Twenty-Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. I:367–381. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

McKercher, David. 2001. Children's acquisition of the meaning of with: A case study of polysemy in child language development. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Mair, Christian. 1994. Is see becoming a conjunction? The study of grammaticalisation as a meeting ground for corpus linguistics and grammatical theory. In Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel, and Schneider, Peter, eds., Creating and Using English Language Corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zurich 1993, 127–137. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 121–150.CrossRef

Marchand, Hans. 1969 [1960]. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. (Handbücher für das Studium der Anglistik.) Munich: Beck'sche Verlags Buchhandlung, 2nd edn.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo. 1988. From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. In Axmaker, Jaisser, and Singmaster, eds., 340–351.

Matthews, P. H. 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

MED. The Middle English Dictionary. 1956–2001. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (See also http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/.)

Meillet, Antoine. 1958 [1912]. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. In Meillet 1958, 130–148. (Originally publ. in Scientia [Rivista di Scienza] 12, No. 26, 6, 1912.)

Meillet, Antoine. 1958 [1915–16]. Le renouvellement des conjonctions. In Meillet 1958, 159–174. (Originally publ. in Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.)

Meillet, Antoine. 1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. (Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 8.) Paris: Champion.Google Scholar

Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Milroy, James. 2003. On the role of the speaker in language change. In Hickey, Raymond, ed., Motives for Language Change, 143–157. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milroy, Lesley. 1987 [1980]. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2 vols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The reordering of morphemes. In Gildea, ed., 231–255.

Mithun, Marianne. 2000. Noun and verb in Iroquoian languages: Multicategorisation from multiple criteria. In Vogel and Comrie, eds., 397–420.

Mithun, Marianne. 2001. Lexical forces shaping the evolution of grammar. In Brinton, ed., 241–252.

Moessner, Lilo. 2001. Genre, text type, style, register: A terminological maze. European Journal of English Studies 5:131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno Cabrera, Juan C. 1998. On the relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, eds., 209–227.

Moore, Colette. Forthcoming. The use of videlicet in Early Modern slander depositions: A case of genre-specific grammaticalization. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7.2.

Morita, Junya. 1995. Lexicalization by way of context-dependent nonce-word formation. English Studies 76:468–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mossé, Ferdinand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. (Collection Linguistique, Société de linguistique de Paris, 42–43.) Paris: C. Klincksieck, 2 vols.Google Scholar

Motsch, Wolfgang. 2003. Derivational morphology. In Frawley, William J., ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. I, 427–429. New York: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn.Google Scholar

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1979. Growth and Structure of the Lexicon of New Guinea Pidgin. (Pacific Linguistics: Series C, 52.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1997. Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. (Westminster Creolistics Series, 3.) London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique, 23.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Syntax: Theory and Problems. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nedjalkov, Igor' V. 1998. Converbs in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera, with Ó Baoill, eds., 421–455.

Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, and Heikkonen, Kirsi, eds., Grammaticalization at Work: Studies of Long-Term Developments in English, 145–189. (Topics in English Linguistics, 24.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In Lass, ed., 332–458.

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2004. Three perspectives on grammaticalization: Lexico-grammar, corpora and historical linguistics. In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 1–31.CrossRef

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. (Longman Linguistic Library.) Harlow and London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Rissanen, Matti. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24:359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevis, Joel A. 1986a. Decliticization and deaffixation in Saame: Abessive taga. In Joseph, ed., 1–9.

Nevis, Joel A. 1986b. Decliticization in Old Estonian. In Joseph, ed., 10–27.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. (Language, Speech, and Communication.) Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nickel, Gerhard. 1966. Die expanded Form im Altenglischen. Vorkommen, Funktion und Herkunft der Umschreibung beon/wesan + Partizip Präsens. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2001. Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. In Campbell, ed., 231–264.

Norde, Muriel. 2002. The final stages of grammaticalization: Affixhood and beyond. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 45–65.

Norrick, Neal R. 1979. The lexicalization of pragmatic functions. Linguistics 17:671–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Dowd, Elizabeth M. 1998. Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discourse-Functional Account. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

OED. Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd edn. (Online http://dictionary.oed.com/.)

Olofsson, Arne. 1990. A participle caught in the act. On the prepositional use of following. Studia Neophilologica 62:23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Páez Urdaneta, Iraset. 1982. Conversational “pues” in Spanish: A process of degrammaticalization? In Ahlqvist, Anders, ed., Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 332–340. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 21.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pagliuca, William, ed. 1994. Perspectives on Grammaticalization. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 109.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 55.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1988. The English Verb. (Longman Linguistics Library.) London and New York: Longman, 2nd edn.Google Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. (Lund Studies in English, 92.) Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew. 1986. Lexicalization. In Tannen, Deborah and Alatis, James E., eds., Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application, 98–120. (GURT 1985.) Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., eds., Language and Communication, 191–226. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Pérez, Aveline. 1990. Time in motion: Grammaticalisation of the be going to construction in English. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics third person:49–64.Google Scholar

Peters, Hans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, ed., 269–288.

Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. (Topics in English Linguistics, 28.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1989. From cases to adpositions. In Pantaleo, Nicola, ed., Aspects of English Diachronic Linguistics; Papers Read at the Second National Conference of History of English, Naples, 28–29 April 1989, 19–61. (Biblioteca della Ricerca. Cultura Straniera, 48.) Fasano: Schena Editore.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Asher and Simpson, eds., Vol. III, 1671–1677.

Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. (Studies in Contemporary Linguistics.) Stanford: CSLI Publications and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Pratt, Lynda and Denison, David. 2000. The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle. Language Sciences 22:401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory.) Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30:549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Schaner-Wolles, Chris, Rennison, John, and Neubarth, Friedrich, eds., Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 393–401. Torino: Rosenbach and Sellier.Google Scholar

Ramat, Paolo and Ricca, Davide. 1994. Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/radiality of the notion of ADVERB. Rivista di Linguistica 6:289–326.Google Scholar

Ramat, Paolo and Davide Ricca. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera, with Ó Baoill, eds., 187–275.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1998a. Morphology and lexical semantics. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, eds., Handbook of Morphology, 248–271. (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1998b. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Wilhelm, eds., The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 97–134. (CSLI Lecture Notes, 83.) Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Navala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, and Rissanen, Matti, eds. 2002. Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 61.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Rhee, Seongha. 1996. Semantics of Verbs and Grammaticalization: The Development in Korean from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. (Hankuk Dissertation Series.) Seoul: Hankuk Publisher.Google Scholar

Rickford, John R. 1999. African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. (Language in Society, 26.) Oxford and Maldon, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, ed., 187–331.

Rissanen, Matti. 2004. Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside(s). In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 151–170.CrossRef

Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Taavitsainen, Irma, eds. 1992. History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. (Topics in English Linguistics, 10.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, and Palander-Collin, Minna, eds. 1993. Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. (Topics in English Linguistics, 11.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian G. 1993a. A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII:219–258.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian. 1993b. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian G. and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 100.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66:227–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, Eleanor and Lloyd, Barbara B., eds., Cognition and Categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. (Topics in English Linguistics, 42.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1972. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In Peranteau, Paul, Levi, Judith N., and Phares, Gloria C., eds., Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 316–328. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Rubino, Carl. 1994. Against the notion of unidirectionality in lexeme genesis. Linguistica Atlantica 16:135–147.Google Scholar

Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1999. Complex -er nominals: Where grammaticalization and lexicalization meet? In Contini-Morava, Ellen and Tobin, Yishai, eds., Between Grammar and Lexicon, 291–332. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 183.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67:63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian and Suzanne Laberge. 1980 [1976]. On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. In Sankoff, Gillian, ed., The Social Life of Language, 195–209. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (Originally publ. in Kivung 6:32–47.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1920. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1988. Der irokesische Sprachtyp. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7:173–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saukkonen, Pauli. 2003. How to define and describe genres and styles. Folia Linguistica Historica XXXVII:399–414.Google Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand. 1986 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy Harris. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics, 5.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shopen, Timothy, ed. 1985. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Skeat, Walter W. 1887. Obscure compounds. Principles of English Etymology. First Series, Vol. I, The Native Element. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, Sven and Verhoeven, Ludo, eds., Relating Events in Narrative: Typological and Contextual Perspectives, Vol. II, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Solomon, Julie. 1995. Local and global functions of a borrowed/native pair of discourse markers in a Yucatec Maya narrative. In Ahlers, Jocelyn, Bilmes, Leela, Guenter, Joshua S., Kaiser, Barbara A., and Namkung, Ju, eds., Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17–20, 1995, 287–298. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, eds. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 151–172. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word Order Changes and Grammaticalization in the History of Chinese. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. (Tromsø-studier i Sprakvitenskap, 10.) Oslo: Novus Verlag.Google Scholar

Swan, Toril. 1997. From manner to subject modification: Adverbialization in English. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 20:179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Axmaker, Jaisser, and Singmaster, eds., 389–405.

Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 54.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Middle English recipes: Genre characteristics, text type features, and underlying traditions of writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics second person:85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tabor, Whitney. 1994. Syntactic innovation: A connectionist model. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, eds., 229–272.

Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, ed., Vol. III, 57–149.

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2 vols.Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 1997 [1989]. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon, 2nd edn.Google Scholar

Thomas, Francis-Noél and Turner, Mark. 1994. Clear and Simple as the Truth: Writing Classic Prose. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II, 313–329.

Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li, ed., 141–177.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1980. Meaning change in the development of grammatical markers. Language Sciences second person:44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, eds., Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245–271. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 24.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1986. “Conventional” and “dead” metaphors revisited. In Paprotté, Wolfgang and Dirven, René, eds., The Ubiquity of Metaphor: Metaphor in Language and Thought, 17–56. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 29.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1994. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Asher and Simpson, eds., Vol. III, 1481–1486.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995a. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Stein and Wright, eds., 31–54.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995b. The role of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995. www.stanford.edu/∼traugott/ect-papersonline.html

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. A historical overview of complex predicate types. In Brinton and Akimoto, eds., 239–260.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Minkova, Donka and Stockwell, Robert, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, 19–49. (Topics in English Linguistics, 39.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 624–647.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Cruse, Alan, Hundsnurscher, Franz, Job, Michael, and Lutzeier, Peter Rolf, eds., Lexikologie/ Lexicology, Vol. II, 1702–1712. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 97.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd, eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 19.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2 vols.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth and Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I, 189–218.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Labrum, Rebecca, and Shepherd, Susan, eds. 1980. Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 14.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan. 1999. Dutch verbal prefixes: Meaning and form, grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Mereu, Lunella, ed., Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax, 121–136. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 180.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan. 2001. On the typology of negative modals. In Hoeksema, Jack, Rullmann, Hotze, Sánchez-Valencia, Victor, and Wouden, Ton, eds., Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, 23–48. (Linguistik Aktuell, 40.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 19–29.

Auwera, Johan ed., in collaboration with Dónall P. Ó Baoill. 1998. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology; EUROTYP 20–3.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van der Wurff, Wim. 2002. The word withal: Some remarks on its historical development. In Fisiak, Jacek, ed., Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology: A Festschrift for Akio Oizumi, 469–487. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21:123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vincent, Diane, Votre, Sebastião, and LaForest, Marty. 1993. Grammaticalisation et post-grammaticalisation. Langues et linguistique 19:71–103.Google Scholar

Vincent, Nigel. 1996. The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Kemenade, Ans and Vincent, Nigel, eds., Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, 149–169. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Visser, F. Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 3 vols.Google Scholar

Vogel, Petra M. and Comrie, Bernard, eds. 2000. Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 23.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Voyles, Joseph B. 1973. Accounting for semantic change. Lingua 31:95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40:987–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 66.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, Anthony R. 1995. Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework. Language 71:533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wartburg, Walter. 1996. Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Basel: Zbinden.Google Scholar

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. 1981 [1961]. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Yakov, eds., Directions for Historical Linguistics, 97–195. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.”Linguistic Inquiry 12:245–274.Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization – “methinks” there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 355–370.

Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, eds. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization – Proceedings from the International Symposium on Grammaticalization, 17–19 June 1999, Potsdam, Germany. (Typological Studies in Language, 49.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Wright, Susan [Fitzmaurice]. 1994. The mystery of the modal progressive. In Kastovsky, ed., 467–485.

Wright, Susan [Fitzmaurice]. 1995. Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In Stein and Wright, eds., 115–172.

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. (Studia Grammatica, 21.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 1996. A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalisation of will in hypothetical predicates. Studies in Language 20:411–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2003. Redefining unidirectionality: Insights from demodalisation. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIV:225–266.Google Scholar

Žirmunskij, V. M. 1966. The word and its boundaries. Linguistics 27:65–91. (Originally publ. in Russian in 1961.)Google Scholar

Aarts, Bas. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28:first person–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia. 1999. Literary language. In Lass, ed., 539–653.

Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 39–66.CrossRef

Aertsen, Henk. 1992. Chaucer's Boece: A syntactic and lexical analysis. In Rissanen, Ihalainen, Nevalainen, and Taavitsainen, eds., 671–687.

Aijmer, Karin. 1996a. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. (Studies in Language and Linguistics.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1996b. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen, eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1–47. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 99.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 2004. The semantic path from modality to aspect: Be able to in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 57–78.CrossRef

Akimoto, Minoji. 1989. A Study of Verb-Nominal Structures in English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar

Algeo, John. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F., eds., The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description, 203–217. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, Andrew S. 1995. Regrammaticalization and degrammaticalization of the inchoative suffix. In Andersen, ed., 1–8.

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. On doing as you please. In Jucker, Andreas H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 275–308. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 35.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 1997. The origins of the “group genitive” in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95:111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2003. Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English. English Language and Linguistics 7:first person–28.Google Scholar

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2000. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 4th edn.

Andersen, Henning. 1987. From auxiliary to desinence. In Harris, Martin and Ramat, Paolo, eds., Historical Development of Auxiliaries, 21–51. (Trends in Linguistics; Studies and Monographs, 35.) Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Henning, ed. 1995. Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993, 33–47. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 124.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Andersen, Henning, ed., Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, 225–248. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 219.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985a. Typological distinctions in word formation. In Shopen, ed., Vol. III, 3–56.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985b. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, ed., Vol. III, 150–201.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 62.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel's revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language 69:68–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 1989 [1972]. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 6.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2nd edn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnovick, Leslie K. 1999. Diachronic Pragmatics: Seven Case Studies in English Illocutionary Development. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, 68.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 1.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1980. Contextuals. Language 56:744–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., eds. 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4 vols.Google Scholar

Aston, Guy and Burnard, Lou. 1998. The BNC Handbook Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. (Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Axmaker, Shelly, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen, eds. 1988. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Probabalistic approaches to morphology. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, eds., Probabilistic Linguistics, 229–287. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, A Bradford Book.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72:69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Philip and Syea, Anand, eds. 1996. Changing Meanings, Changing Functions: Papers Relating to Grammaticalization in Contact Languages. (Westminster Creolistics Series, 2.) London: University of Westminster Press.Google Scholar

Barcelona, Antonio, ed. 2000. Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. (Topics in English Linguistics, 30.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1978. On lexicalization (neither a lexicalist nor a transformationalist be). Archivum Linguisticum 9:third person–14.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word Formation. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1988. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1992. Lexicalization and level ordering. Linguistics 30:561–568.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Productivity. In Asher and Simpson, eds., Vol. VI, 3354–3357.

Benveniste, Emile. 1971a [1958]. Delocutive verbs. In Benveniste 1971c, 239–246. (Orig. publ. in Hatcher, A. G. and Selig, K. L., eds., Studia Philologica et Litteraria in Honorem L. Spitzer, 57–63, Bern, 1958.)Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1971b [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Benveniste 1971c [1966], 223–230. (Originally publ. in Journal de psychologie 55: 267ff., 1958.)

Benveniste, Emile. 1971c [1966]. Problems in General Linguistics, trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. (Miami Linguistics Series, 8.) Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Orig. publ. as Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1966.)Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). (Topics in English Linguistics, 51.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berman, Ruth A. and Slobin, Dan I.. 1994. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Beths, Frank. 1999. The history of dare and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37:1069–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhat, D. N. S. 2000. Word classes and sentential functions. In Vogel and Comrie, eds., 47–63.

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In Rissanen et al., eds., 688–704.

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

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1970. On classifying semantic features. In Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl Erich, eds., Progress in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, 27–50. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 43.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 1993. The relevance of reformulations. Language and Literature second person:101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang, eds., Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. II, 1596–1608. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 20.2.) Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas. 2003. Words and concepts in time: Towards diachronic cognitive onomasiology. In Eckardt, Regine, Heusinger, Klaus, and Schwarze, Christoph, eds., Words in Time: Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View, 38–65. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 143.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter, eds. 1999. Historical Semantics and Cognition. (Cognitive Linguistics Research, 13.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blom, Corrien and Booij, Geert. 2003. The diachrony of complex predicates in Dutch: A case study in grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50:61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul and Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32:45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum first person:first person–14.Google Scholar

Booij, Gert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics, 16.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra, and Manning, Christopher D.. 2002. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Hong Kong, 13–82. Stanford: CSLI Publications and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 49.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996a. Attitudes toward increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English. Journal of English Linguistics 24:186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996b. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. (Topics in English Linguistics, 19.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics second person:177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J., ed. 2001. Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 215.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the “late” use of temporal adverbs. In Fanago, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, and Pérez-Guerra, Javier, eds., English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000, 67–97. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 223.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2004. Subject clitics in English: A case of degrammaticalization? In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 227–256.CrossRef

Brinton, Laurel J. In press. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma, eds., Methods of Historical Pragmatics: Recovering Speaker Meaning and Reader Inference. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef

Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji, eds. 1999. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. (Studies in Language Companion Series, 47.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. and Dieter Stein. 1995. Functional renewal. In Andersen, ed., 33–47.

Bruyn, Adrienne. 1996. On identifying instances of grammaticalization in Creole languages. In Baker and Syea, eds., 29–46.

Burridge, Kate. 1998. From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: The curious case of Pennsylvania German wotte. In Hogg, Richard M. and Bergen, Linda, eds., Historical Linguistics 1995, Selected Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vol. II. Germanic Linguistics, 19–31. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 162.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Burridge, Kate. 2002. Changes within Pennsylvania German grammar as enactments of Anabaptist world view. In Enfield, N. J., ed., Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, 207–230. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bussmann, Hadumod. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, trans. and eds. Trauth, Gregory and Kazzazi, Kerstin. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. (Typological Studies in Language, 9.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Hammond and Noonan, eds., 119–141.

Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In Pagliuca, ed., 235–252.

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 602–623.

Bybee, Joan L. and Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13:51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, eds. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. (Typological Studies in Language, 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and William Pagliuca. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, eds., Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 109–122. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 48.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I, 285–299.

Campbell, Lyle. 2001a. What's wrong with grammaticalization? In Campbell, ed., 113–161.

Campbell, Lyle, ed. 2001b. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Language Sciences 23, Numbers 2–3.

Campbell, Lyle and Mithun, Marianne, eds. 1979. The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Cannon, Garland. 1987. Historical Change and English Word-Formation. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Childs, G. Tucker. 1994. African ideophones. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John J., eds., Sound Symbolism, 178–204. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1988. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax.) New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-Based Approach (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 32.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Brady Z. 2004. Early English clause structure change and stochastic optimality theory setting. In Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberley, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding Conversations, 343–369. (Topics in English Linguistics, 45.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Eve V. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55:767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claudi, Ulrike. 1994. Word order change as category change: The Mande case. In Pagliuca, ed., 191–231.

Claudi, Ulrike and Heine, Bernd. 1986. On the metaphorical basis of grammar. Studies in Language 10:297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael G. 1994. Inter-Cultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, 2.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville D. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface. Language 63:299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, et al. University of Helsinki. Available in International Computer Archives of Modern English.Google Scholar

Cowie, Anthony Paul and Mackin, Ronald. 1993 [1975]. Oxford Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. London: Oxford University Press. (Previously publ. as Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Vol. I: Verbs with Prepositions & Particles.)Google Scholar

Cowie, Claire. 1995. Grammaticalization and the snowball effect. Language and Communication 15:181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1995. Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71:490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William, Denning, Keith, and Kemmer, Suzanne, eds. 1990. Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday. (Typological Studies in Language, 20.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2003. Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35:1069–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. and Nowak, Andrzej. 2003. Dynamical Grammar: Minimalism, Acquisition, and Change. (Foundations of Syntax, 2.) New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-Based Study of Derivation. (Topics in English Linguistics, 20.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen, eds. 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. (Studies in Language, Companion Series, 42.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2 vols.Google Scholar

DeGraff, Michel, ed. 1999. Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Groodt, Sarah. 2003. Unidirectionality in grammaticalization: The development of concessive subordinating conjunctions with ob- in German. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIV:193–204.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1985a. The origins of completive up in English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86:37–61.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1985b. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 66:189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. (Longman Linguistics Library.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In Brinton, ed., 119–144.

Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Reanalysis vs. grammaticalization: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21:151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2000. Paolo, Antonette, ed. Toronto: Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto. (http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/o/oec/.)Google Scholar

Dictionnaire Robert. 1992. Dictionnaire historique de la langue Française. Rey, Alain, ed. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. 1982. Where have all the Adjectives Gone? And other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 107.) Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donner, Morton. 1991. Adverb form in Middle English. English Studies 72:first person–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Yesterday's affixes as today's clitics: A case study in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 67–81.CrossRef

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42:third person–10.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. (Language in Society, 27.) Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic Epidemiology: Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. (RoutledgeCurzon Asian Linguistics Series.) London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Enger, Hans-Olaf. 2002. The story of Scandinavian -s(t) retold: Grammaticalising a clitic to a derivational affix. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIII:79–105.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba' and you know. Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap, 76–93. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology. New Series, 10.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild; with Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic. (Mouton Grammar Library, 15.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas D. and Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind's ear: The semantic extensions of perception. Language 76:546–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. Types of lexical information. In Kiefer, F., ed., Studies in Syntax and Semantics, 109–137. (Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series, 10.) Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar