References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2020
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- World Lexicon of Grammaticalization , pp. 517 - 611Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aberra, Daniel. 2016. Grammaticalization of the Amharic word fit ‘face’ from a body part to grammatical meanings. Journal of Languages and Culture 7, 9: 86–92.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1991a. Discourse particles: Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 1991b. Disourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Abraham 1991a, pp. 203–52.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 1991c. The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 331–80.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 1993. Einleitung zum Thema dieses Bandes. Grammatikalisierung und Reanalyse: Einanderausschließende oder ergänzende Begriffe? Folia Linguistica Historica 13, 1–2: 7–26.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2000. Modal particles in German: Word classification and legacy beyond grammaticalization. In Vogel and Comrie 2000, pp. 321–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2003. Autonomous and non-autonomous components of “grammaticalization”: Economic criteria in the emergence of German negation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 56, 4: 325–65.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2004. The grammaticalization of the infinitival preposition: Toward a theory of “grammaticalizing reanalysis”. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7, 2: 111–70.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner, Givón, T., and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1995. Discourse, grammar and typology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Leisiö, Larisa (eds.). 2006. Passivization and typology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Adams Liclan, Patsy and Marlett, Stephen. 1990. Madija noun morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 56: 102-20.Google Scholar
Adelaar, Alexander and Pawley, Andrew (eds.). 2009. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Adone, Dany and Plag, Ingo (eds.). 1994. Creolization and language change. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.). 1982. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ahn, Joo-Hoh. 1996. A study of the phenomena of grammaticization in the Korean noun. PhD dissertation, Yonsei University, Korea.Google Scholar
Ahn, Joo-Hoh 2003. A study on quotation sentence and grammaticalization of quotation markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 10, 1: 145–165.Google Scholar
Ahn, Joo-Hoh 2006. Syntactic characteristics of ‘sipta’ phrase and its semantic development in Modern Korean. Korean Semantics 20: 371–91.Google Scholar
Ahn, Kyou Dong. 2005. Semantic generality dilemma in grammaticalization: A case of cappacita. Journal of Linguistic Science 32: 159–78.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung. 2009. Emergence of causality in grammar: Causal complex prepositions in English. Seoul: Hankookmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung 2010. From ‘favor’ to ‘cause’: The English causal adposition thanks to and its Korean counterpart tekpwuney. Language Sciences 32: 579–87.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung 2016. Surprise in discourse: The mirative meanings of ta(ha)-derived sentence final particles in Korean. Language and Linguistics 71: 95–114.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung and Yap, Foong Ha. 2013. Negotiating common ground in discourse: A diachronic and discourse analysis of maliya in Korean. Language Sciences 37: 36–51.Google Scholar
Ahn, Mikyung and Yap, Foong Ha 2015. Evidentiality in interaction: A pragmatic analysis of Korean hearsay evidential markers. Studies in Language 39, 1: 46–84.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan and Westvik 1997, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 2004. The semantic path from modality to aspect: be able to in a crosslinguistic perspective. In Lindquist and Mair 2004, pp. 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1996. Areal diffusion in northwest Amazonia: The case of Tariana. Anthropological Linguistics 38: 73–116.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1997. Areal typology and grammaticalization: The emergence of new verbal morphology in an obsolescent language. Paper presented at the symposium On the Interface between Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization Theory: Languages of the Americas, Rice University, Houston, TX, 26–29 March 1997.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Language contact in Amazonia. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Mechanisms of change in areal diffusion: New morphology and language contact. Journal of Linguistics 39: 1–29.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. The Manambu language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. The grammaticalization of evidentiality. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 602–10.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. Languages of the Amazon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Areal diffusion and parallelism in drift: Shared grammaticalization patterns. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 23–41.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2018a. Areal diffusion and the limits of grammaticalization: An Amazonian perspective. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 337–49.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.). 2018b. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.). 2001. Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.). 2003. Studies in evidentiality. (Typological Studies in Language 54.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.). 2006a. Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology
. (Explorations in Linguistic Typology 2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.). 2006b. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.). 2014. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, Robert M. W. (eds.). 2017. The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aitchison, Jean. 1996. The seeds of speech: Language origin and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji. 2000. The grammaticalization of the verb ʽprayʼ. In Fischer et al. 2000, pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji (ed.). 2004. Linguistic studies based on corpora. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2008. Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In Good 2008, pp. 144–81.Google Scholar
Alexandre, R. P. 1953a. La langue moré, vol. 1: Introduction, grammaire moré, dictionnaire français–moré. Dakar: Institut Fondamental de l’Afrique Noire (IFAN).Google Scholar
Alexandre, R. P. 1953b. La langue moré, vol. 2: Dictionnaire moré–français. Dakar: IFAN.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Laws of diachrony as a source for syntactic generalisations: The case of V to I. GLOW Newsletter 46: 57–8.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis and Fanselow, Gisbert 2002. On the correlation between morphology and syntax: The case of V-to-I. In Zwart and Abraham 2002, pp. 219–42.Google Scholar
Allen, Andrew. 1995. Regrammaticalization and degrammaticalization of the inchoative suffix. In Andersen 1995, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Amborn, Hermann, Minker, Gunter, and Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1980. Das Dullay. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 6.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1990. The grammatical packaging of experiences in Ewe: A study in the semantics of syntax. Australian Journal of Linguistics 10: 139–81.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix 2006. Grammars in contact in the Volta Basin (West Africa): On contact-induced grammatical change in Likpe. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2006b, pp. 114–42.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix, Dench, Alan, and Evans, Nicholas (eds.). 2006. Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Amiridze, Nino 2006. Reflexivization strategies in Georgian. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning (ed.). 1995. Historical linguistics 1993. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning 2001a. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning 2001b. Actualization and the (uni)directionality. In Andersen 2001a, pp. 225–48.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning 2008. Grammaticalisation in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Eythórsson 2008, pp. 11–44.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory. 2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The grammar of case: Towards a localistic theory. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd B. 1975. Grammar-meaning universals and proto-language reconstruction, or Proto-World NOW! Chicago Linguistics Society 11, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1980. On the development of morphology from syntax. In Fisiak 1985, pp. 51–69.Google Scholar
Andersson, Peter. 2008. Swedish må and the (de)grammaticalization debate. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
Angelo, Denise and Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2016. “Beware bambai – lest it be apprehensive”. In Meakins and O´Shannessy 2016, pp. 255–96.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto. 1999. Comparative constructions in Sinitic: Areal typology and patterns of grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto 2010. Surpass comparatives in Sinitic and beyond: Typology and grammaticalization. Linguistics 48, 4: 919–50.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto, Bisang, Walter, and Szeto, P-Y. 2018. Grammaticalization in isolating languages and the notion of complexity. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 219–34.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto and Lim, Lisa. 2004. Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence: Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004, pp. 345–62.Google Scholar
Antonov, Anton. 2013. Grammaticalization of allocutivity markers in Japanese and Korean in a crosslinguistic perspective. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 317–39.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. [1972] 1989. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. 2nd edn. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Arends, Jacques. 1986. Genesis and development of the equative copula in Sranan. In Muysken and Smith 1986, pp. 103–27.Google Scholar
Arends, Jacques (ed.). 1995. The early stages of creolization. (Creole Language Library 13.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arends, Jacques, Muysken, Pieter, and Smith, Norval (eds.). 1995. Pidgins and creoles: An introduction. (Creole Language Library 15.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Arensen, Jon. 1982. Murle grammar. (Occasional Papers in the Study of Sudanese Languages 2.) Juba: College of Education.Google Scholar
Aristar, Anthony Rodrigues. 1991. On diachronic sources and synchronic pattern: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals. Language 67, 1: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristar, Anthony Rodrigues 1999. Typology and the Saussurean dichotomy. In Justus and Polomé 1999, pp. 409–28.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, Peter and Maisak, Timur. 2018. Grammaticalization in the North Caucasian languages. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 116–45.Google Scholar
Arn, M. J. and Wirtjes, H. (eds.). 1985. Historical and editorial studies in Medieval and Early Modern English. For Johan Gerritsen. Groningen: Wolters-Nordhoff.Google Scholar
Arroyo, José Blas, Luis. 2011. From politeness to discourse marking: The process of pragmaticalization of muy bien in vernacular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 855–74.Google Scholar
Ashby, William J. 1981. The loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language 57: 674–87.Google Scholar
Ashton, E. O. 1959. Swahili grammar (including intonation). 7th impression. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 1997. Drohen und versprechen als sog. ‘Modalitätsverben’ in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 34: 12–19.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole 2005. Grammatikalisierung und Persistenz im deutschen “Rezipienten Passiv” mit bekommen/kriegen/erhalten. In Leuschner et al. 2005, pp. 211–27.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole 2008. Degrammaticalization versus typology: Reflections on a strained relationship. In Eythórsson 2008, pp. 45–77.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field position in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6: 295–322.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter and Günthner, Susanne. 2005. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen: Ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Leuschner, Mortelmans, and De Groodt 2005, pp. 335–62.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter (ed.). 1988. Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter 1998. ‘Crow is sitting chasing them’: Grammaticalisation and the verb ‘to sit’ in the Mantharta languages, Western Australia. In Siewierska and Song 1998, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
Autenrieth, Tanja. 2002. Heterosemie und Grammatikalisierung bei Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der (ed.). 1998. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology/EUROTYP, 20–3.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der 1999. Periphrastic ‘do’, typological prolegomena. In Tops, Devriendt, and Geukens 1999, pp. 457–70.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der 2008. In defense of classical semantic maps. Theoretical Linguistics 34, 1: 39–46.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der and Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2, 1: 79–124.Google Scholar
Awoyale, Yiwola. 1986. Reflexivization in Kwa languages. In Dimmendaal 1986, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Babel, Anne. 2009. Dizque, evidentiality and stance in Valley Spanish. Language in Society 38: 487–511.Google Scholar
Backus, Angus. 1996. Two in one: Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Backus, Ad, Dogruöz, Seza, and Heine, Bernd. 2011. Salient stages in contact-induced grammatical change: Evidence from synchronic vs diachronic contact situations. Language Sciences 33, 5: 738–52.Google Scholar
Baek, Nak-Chen. 1999. A study on grammaticalization and restructured compound conjunctive ending in Korean. Journal of Dongguk Language and Literature 10–11: 259–82.Google Scholar
Baek, Nak-Chen 2005. Morpho-syntactic properties of the auxiliary verbs in Korean. Journal of Korean Language and Culture 28: 229–48.Google Scholar
Baik, Junghye. 2011. From ‘follow’ to ‘counter-expectation’ concepts: A case of Korean postposition ttala(se). Journal of Linguistic Science 58: 93–110.Google Scholar
Baik, Junghye 2012. On the emergence of diverse functions of as: A grammaticalization perspective. Discourse and Cognition 19, 3: 157–72.Google Scholar
Baik, Junghye 2015. From nominals to epistemic markers: With reference to the Korean defective noun moyang ‘appearance’. Journal of Linguistic Science 74: 109–26.Google Scholar
Baik, Junghye 2016. On the grammatical evolution of Korean displacement verb pelita ʽthrow awayʼ: From a grammaticalization perspective. International Journal of Language and Linguistics 3, 1: 49–56.Google Scholar
Bak, Sung-Yun. 1997. Pakkey: A case of grammaticalization in Korean. Korean Journal of Linguistics 22, 1: 57–70.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip. 1995. Some developmental inferences from the historical studies of pidgins and creoles. In Arends 1995, pp. 1–24.Google 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
Bakker, Peter and Mous, Maarten (eds.). 1994. Mixed languages: 15 case studies in language intertwining. (Studies in Language and Language Use 13.) Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT).Google Scholar
Bamgbose, Ayo. 1966. A grammar of Yoruba. (West African Language Monographs 5.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bamgbose, Ayo 1974. On serial verbs and verbal status. Journal of West African Languages 9, 1: 17–48.Google Scholar
Bao, Zhiming and Wee, Lionel. 1999. The passive in Singapore English. World Englishes 18: 1–11.Google Scholar
Barlow, A. Ruffell. 1960. Studies in Kikuyu grammar and idiom. Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons.Google Scholar
Baron, Irene, Herslund, Michael, and Srensen, Finn (eds.). 2001. Dimensions of possession. (Typological Studies in Language, 47.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar and Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2002. On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 345–61.Google Scholar
Battye, Adrian, and Roberts, Ian (eds.). 1995. Clause structure and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 1995. The definite article in Indo-European: Emergence of a new category. In Stark et al. 2007, pp. 103–40.Google Scholar
Bavin, Edith L. 1983. Morphological and syntactic divergence in Lango and Acholi. In Vossen and Bechhaus-Gerst 1983, pp. 147–68.Google Scholar
Bavin, Edith L. 1995. The obligation modality in Western Nilotic languages. In Bybee and Fleischman 1995, pp. 107–34.Google Scholar
Becker, Alton L. 1975. A linguistic image of nature: The Burmese numerative classifier system. Linguistics 165: 109–21.Google Scholar
Becker-Donner, Etta. 1965. Die Sprache der Mano. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-Hist. Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 245, 5.) Graz, Vienna, and Cologne: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2002. Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin. 2012. Expressions of epistemic modality in Mainland Scandinavian: A study into the lexicalization-grammaticalization-pragmaticalization interface. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin 2017a. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification: The case of the Swedish modals må and måtte. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 47–80.Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin 2017b. The lexicalization-grammaticalization-pragmaticalization interface: The case of Mainland Scandinavian jeg tror. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 67–91.Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia. 2003. Toward a diachronic typology of yes/no question constructions with particles. In Kaiser et al. 2003, pp. 604–21.Google Scholar
Bender, M. Lionel (ed.). 1976. The non-Semitic languages of Ethiopia. East Lansing, MI: African Studies Center, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia and Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). 2007. Si dialetti italoromanzi: Saggi in onore di Nigel B. Vincent. Norfolk: Biddles.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile 1968. Mutations of linguistic categories. In Lehmann and Malkiel 1968, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
Bereczki, Andras, Csepregi, Márta, and Klima, Laszlo (eds.). 2008. Unnepi irasok Havas Ferenc tiszteletere. (Urálisztikai Tanulmányok 18.) Budapest: ELTE Finnugor Tanszék.Google Scholar
Linda van, Bergen and Hogg, Richard M. (eds.). 1997. Papers from the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bernander, Rasmus. 2017. Grammar and grammaticalization in Manda: An analysis of the wider TAM domain in a Tanzanian Bantu language. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 2000. Tuvaluan: A Polynesian language of the Central Pacific. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beths, Frank. 1999. The history of dare and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37, 6: 1069–1110.Google Scholar
Beyer, Klaus. 2017. Grammaticalization as it happens? A usage-based approach to morphosyntactic variation in Pana. In Kramer and Kießling 2017, pp. 27–44.Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe N. S. 2013. Third person pronouns and demonstratives. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. http://wals.info/chapter/43Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1976. How aspect languages get tense. In Steever, Walker, and Mufwene 1976, pp. 40–9.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. (ed.) 2012. The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, Charles S. and Kendall, Martha B.. 1986. Postpositions and auxiliaries in Northern Mande: Syntactic indeterminacy and linguistic analysis. Anthropological
Linguistics 28, 4: 389–403.Google Scholar
Bíró, Bernadett. 2017. From nouns into nominalizers and even further – Grammaticalization processes in Northern Mansi. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen (FUM ) 41: 1–23.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1996. Areal typology and grammaticalization: Processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and Mainland South East Asian languages. Studies in Language 20, 3: 519–97.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 1998a. Grammaticalization and language contact, constructions and positions. In Ramat, Giacalone and Hopper 1998, pp. 13–58.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 1998b. Adverbiality: The view from the Far East. In van der Auwera 1998, pp. 643–812.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 1999. Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages. Counting and beyond. In Grozdanovič 1999, pp. 113–85.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning as an areal phenomenon in East and mainland Southeast Asia – the case of tense-aspect-mood (TAM). In Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer 2004, pp. 109–38.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2008. Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2009. On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Sampson et al. 2009, pp. 34–49.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2010. Grammaticalization in Chinese. A construction-based account. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 245–77.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2011. Grammaticalization and typology. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus, and Wiemer, Björn (eds.). 2004. What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter and Malchukov, Andrej (eds.). 2017. Unity and diversity in grammaticalization scenarios. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 99.) Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter and Malchukov, Andrej. In prep. Cross-linguistic variation in grammaticalization scenarios and areal patterns in grammaticalization: A comparative handbook. (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 4.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter and Rinderknecht, Peter (eds.). 1991. Von Europa bis Ozeanien – von der Antonymie zum Relativsatz. (Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Zürich 11.) Zürich: Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Bischoff, Shannon and Jany, Carmen (eds.). 2013. Functional approaches to language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blackings, Mairi and Fabb, Nigel. 2003. A grammar of Ma’di. (Mouton Grammar Library 32.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry, Burridge, Kate, and Taylor, John (eds.). 2003. Historical linguistics 2001. Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blake, Frank R. 1934. The origin of pronouns of the first and second persons. American Journal of Philology 55: 244–8.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalizaion. In Haspelmath et al. 2001, pp. 1596–1608.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. Jr. 1975. Progressive aspect. Working Papers on Language Universals (Stanford, CA) 18: 1–34.Google Scholar
Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Hammond, Moravcsik, and Wirth 1988, pp. 173–91.Google Scholar
Bleek, Dorothea F. 1956. A Bushman dictionary. (American Oriental Series 41.) New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Blass, Regina. 1989. Grammaticalization of interpretive use: The case of ré in Sissala. Lingua 79: 299–326.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2008. Consonant epenthesis: Natural and unnatural histories. In Good 2008, pp. 79–107.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz (ed.). 1922. Handbook of American Indian languages, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bogaert, Julie van. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49, 2: 295–332.Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2009. Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 974–98.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2009. Een retorische straks-constructie. In Boogaart, Lalleman, Mooijaart, and van der Wal 2009, pp. 167–83.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny Lalleman, Josien, Mooijaart, Marijke, and van der Wal, Marijke (eds.). 2009. Woorden wisselen: Voor Ariane van Santen bij haar afscheid van de Leidse universiteit. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden (SNL-reeks 20).Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In Dressler et al. 2005, pp. 109–32.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, Mugdan, Joachim, and Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.). 2004. Morphologie – Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17, 2.) Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap (eds.). 1994. Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert. 1983. Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert 1988. Zur grammatischen Struktur des Nubi (Beziehungen zum Arabischen und zu möglichen Substraten). In Boretzky, Enninger, and Stolz 1988, pp. 45–88.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert 1989. Zum Interferenzverhalten des Romani. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3: 357–74.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert 1996. Entlehnte Wortstellungssyntax im Romani. In Boretzky et al. 1996, pp. 95–119.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner, and Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 1985. Akten des 1. Essener Kolloquiums über Kreolsprachen und Sprachkontakte. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner, and Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 1989. Beiträge zum 4. Essener Kolloquium über “Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel, Sprachwechsel, Sprachtod” vom 9.10. – 10. 10.1987 an der Universität Essen. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner, and Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 1991. Beiträge zum 6. Essener Kolloquium über “Kontakt und Simplifikation” vom 18. – 19. 11.1989 an der Universität Essen. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner, and Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 1996. Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte, Sprachen und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24.) Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner, Jeßing, Benedikt, and Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 1993. Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien: Beiträge zum 8. Bochum-Essener Kolloquium über “Sprachwandel und seine Prinzipien”, vom 19.10. – 21. 10.1990 an der Ruhruniversität Bochum. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Borg, Albert and Plank, Frans (eds.). 1996. The Maltese noun phrase meets typology. Rivista di Linguistica, special issue, 8, 1.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti. 2003. Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: The Swedish possessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26, 2: 133–63.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti and Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 163–76.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Zur Entwicklungsdynamik von Kasussystemen. Folia Linguistica Historica 6, 2: 285–321.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudie and de Swart, Henriette (eds.). 2009. Language evolution: The view from restricted linguistic systems. Utrecht: LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).Google Scholar
Botne, Robert. 1989. Reconstruction of a grammaticalized auxiliary in Bantu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19, 2: 169–86.Google Scholar
Bouquiaux, Luc (ed.). 1980. L’expansion bantoue, vol. 2. Paris: Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France (SELAF).Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe. 1999. The grammaticalization of deictic directionals as modulators of temporal distance. Paper presented at the international conference on New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Potsdam, Germany, June 1999.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe 2002. The grammaticalization of deictic directionals into modulators of temporal distance. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 181–99.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe 2008. On the grammaticalization of ‘come’ and ‘go’ into markers of textual connectivity. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 37–56.Google Scholar
Bourdin, Philippe 2014. When come and go go necessive. In Devos, Maud, and Jenneke van der Waal 2014, pp. 103–64.Google Scholar
Bowden, John. 1992. Behind the preposition: Grammaticalization of locatives in Oceanic languages. (Pacific Linguistics Series B, 107.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bowden, John. 2001. Taba: Description of a South Halmahera language. (Pacific Linguistics 521.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16: 9–43.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88, 1: 1–44.Google Scholar
Henry, Bradley C. and Hollenbach, Barbara E. (eds.). 1988. Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages, vol. 1. (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 83.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas, Arlington.Google Scholar
Brauner, Siegmund 1993. Innovationsprozesse im Verbalsystem des Schona. In Möhlig, Brauner, and Jungraithmayr 1993, pp. 105–14.Google Scholar
Bravo, Ana 2014. The Spanish auxiliary ir ʽto goʼ: From resultative motion verb to focus marker. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 187–218.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2008. Grammaticalization, subjectification, and leftward movement of adjectives of difference in the noun phrase. Folia Linguistica 42: 259–306.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine 2010. Reconstructing paths of secondary grammaticalization of same from emphasizing to phoric and nominal-aspectual postdeterminer uses. Transactions of the Philological Society 108, 1: 68–87.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine 2014. What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48, 2: 469–502.Google Scholar
Breeze, Mary J. 1990. A sketch of the phonology and grammar of Gimira (Benchnon). In Hayward 1990, pp. 1–67.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The grammaticalization of Small Size Nouns: reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics 35, 4: 293–324.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte 2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14, 1: 83–109.Google Scholar
Brenzinger, Matthias and König, Christa (eds.). 2010. Khoisan languages and linguistics: The Riezlern Symposium 2003. 2004. (Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 17.) Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Brenzinger, Matthias and Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona (eds.). 2015. The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1996. Überlegungen zu einer Klassifizierung des grammatischen Wandels im Sprachkontakt (am Beispiel slavischer Kontaktfälle). Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49, 1: 21–38.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter 2003. Der indefinite Artikel in slavischen Mikrosprachen: Grammatikalisierung im totalen Sprachkontakt. In Kuße 2003, pp. 27–68.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter 2004. Der definite Artikel in der obersorbischen Umgangssprache. In Krause and Sappok 2004, pp. 9–57.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter 2012. The grammaticalization of an indefinite article in Slavic micro-languages. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 275–322.Google Scholar
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bright, William 1992 (ed.). International encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems. Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 49.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2: 177–99.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the “late” use of temporal adverbs. In Fanego et al. 2002, pp. 67–97.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2004. Subject clitics in English: A case of degrammaticalization. In Lindquist and Mair 2004, pp. 227–56.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008a. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008b. “Where grammar and lexis meet”: Composite predicates in English. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2011. The grammaticalization of complex predicates. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 556–66.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. (Research Surveys in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brisson, Robert and Boursier, Daniel. 1979. Petit-dictionnaire baka-français. MS, Douala, Cameroon.Google Scholar
Brown, Lea and Dryer, Matthew. 2008. The verb for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea. Language 84, 3: 528–65.Google Scholar
Brucale, Luisa and Mocciaro, Egle. 2017. Paths of grammaticalization of the Early Latin per/per-: A cognitive hypothesis. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 199–235.Google Scholar
Bruce, Les. 1984. The Alamblak language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, 81.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia and Macaulay, Monica. 1986. Interacting semantic systems: Mixtec expressions of location. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 315–27.Google Scholar
Bruyn, Adrienne. 1995a. Relative clauses in early Sranan. In Arends 1995, pp. 149–202.Google Scholar
Bruyn, Adrienne 1996. On identifying instances of grammaticalization in Creole languages. In Baker and Syea 1996, pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Bruyn, Adrienne 2009. Grammaticalization in creoles: Ordinary and not-so-ordinary cases. Studies in Language 33, 2: 312–27.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Oda and Fiedler, Wilfried. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Buchholz, Oda, Fiedler, Wilfried, and Uhlisch, Gerda. 1993. Wörterbuch Albanisch – Deutsch. Berlin and Munich: Langenscheidt Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 1995. From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: The curious case of Pennsylvania German wotte. In Hogg and van Bergen 1995, pp. 19–33.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard, and Dahl, Östen. 1984. Explanations for language universals. Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985a. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. (Typological Studies in Language 9.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985b. On the nature of grammatical categories. Paper presented at the Second Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Buffalo, NY, 3 October 1985.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Semantic substance vs contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 247–64.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003a. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello 2003, pp. 145–67.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003b. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph and Janda 2003, pp. 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 4: 711–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2008. Grammaticization: Implications for a theory of language. In Guo et al. 2008, 345–56.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2009. Language universals and usage-based theory. In Christiansen et al. 2009, pp. 17–39.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2011. Usage-based theory and grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Beckner, Clay. 2010. Usage-based theory. In Heine and Narrog 2010, pp. 827–56.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13, 1: 51–103.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.). 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. (Typological Studies in Language 32.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1997. Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to T. Givón. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. (Typological Studies in Language 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Noonan, Michael (eds.). 2001. Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Studies presented to Sandra Thompson. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Pagliuca, William. 1985. Cross linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Fisiak 1985, pp. 59–83.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William, and Perkins, Revere D.. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In Croft et al. 1990, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William, and Perkins, Revere D. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 17–58.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D., 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
Bybee, Joan L. and Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 378–88.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Corrigan et al. 2009, pp. 187–217.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Cacoullos, Rena Torres 2015. Grammaticalization and variation of will and shall in Shakespeare’s comedies. In Torres Cacoullos et al. 2015, pp. 131–46.Google Scholar
Byrd, Steven Eric. 2006. Calunga, an Afro-Brazilian speech of the Triangulo Mineiro. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Services.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis X. 1988. Deixis as a noncomplementizer strategy for creole subordination marking. Linguistics 26, 3: 335–64.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis X. and Holm, John A. (eds.). 1993. Atlantic meets Pacific: A global view of pidginization and creolization. (Creole Language Library 11.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Byrne, Francis X. and Winford, Donald (eds.). 1993. Focus and grammatical relations in Creole languages. (Creole Language Library 12.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Calame-Griaule, Geneviève. 1968. Dictionnaire dogon (dialect toro): Langue et civil-isation. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil language of El Salvador. (Mouton Grammar Library 1.) Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 1987. Syntactic change in Pipil. International Journal of American Linguistics 53, 3: 253–80.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 285–99.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 1997. Approaches to reanalysis and its role in the explanation of syntactic change. In van Bergen and Hogg 1997.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23, 2–3: 113–61.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle and Janda, Richard. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23, 2–3: 93–112.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle and Mixco, Mauricio J.. 2007. A glossary of historical linguistics. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Canon, Rev. and Gore, Edward C. [1931] 1952. Zande and English dictionary. Revised edn. London: Sheldon Press.Google Scholar
Canu, Gaston. 1976. La langue mò:ré, dialecte de Ouagadougou (Haute-Volta): Déscription synchronique. Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
Cao, Guangshun, Chappell, Hilary, Djamouri, R., and Wiebusch, Thekla (eds.). 2013. Breaking down the barriers: Interdisciplinary studies in Chinese linguistics and beyond. 2 vols. Taipei: Academia Sinitica.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1993. The Mauritian Creole ‘lekor’ reflexive: Substrate influence on the target-location parameter. In Byrne and Holm 1993, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy and Stewart, William A.. 1988. Binding theory, bioprogram, and creolization: Evidence from Haitian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3: 1–67.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy and Stewart, William A. 1989. Mauritian Creole reflexives: A reply to Corne. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 4, 1: 65–101.Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne. 2007. From preposition to article: The grammaticalization of the French partitive. Studies in Language 31: 1–49.Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne and Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2014. The grammaticalization of the prepositional partitive in Romance. In Luraghi and Huumo 2014, pp. 477–522.Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne and De Mulder, Walter. 2010. The emergence of the definite article in Late Latin ille in competition with ipse. In Cuyckens et al. 2010, pp. 241–76.Google Scholar
Carlier, Anne, De Mulder, Walter, and Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2012. Introduction: The pace of grammaticalization in a typological perspective. Folia Linguistica 46, 2: 287–301.Google Scholar
Carlin, Eithne. 1993. The So language. (Afrikanistische Monographien 2.) Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Carlson, Robert. 1991. Grammaticalization of postpositions and word order in Senufo languages. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 201–23.Google Scholar
Carlson, Robert 1994. A grammar of Supyire. (Mouton Grammar Library 14.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carlson, Robert 2014. The grammaticalization of ʽgoʼ as an intensifier in Supyire. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 249–80.Google Scholar
Carrasquel, José. 1995. The evolution of demonstrative ille from Latin to Modern Spanish: A grammaticalization analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Casad, Eugene H. and Palmer, Gary B.. 2003. Cognitive linguistics and non-Indo-European languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2005. Passive auxiliaries in Late Latin. In Kiss and Salvi 2005, pp. 179–96.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2006. The rise and grammaticalization paths in Latin fieri and facere as passive auxiliaries. In Abraham and Leisiö 2006, pp. 311–36.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2007. Auxiliaries and serials between late Latin and early Romance. In Bentley and Ledgeway 2007, pp. 63–87.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela 2015. Paths of grammaticalization in Romance voice systems. Paper presented at the symposium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization Scenarios”, Mainz, 12–14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1977. The evolution of third person verb agreement in the Iroquoian languages. In Li 1977, pp. 493–524.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 2000. Florescence as a force in grammaticalization. In Gildea 2000, pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 2002. Putting grammaticalization in its place. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 395–412.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. and Nichols, Johanna (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chaker, Salem. 1997. Quelques faits de grammaticalisation dans le système verbal berbère. In Lemaréchal 1997, pp. 103–21.Google Scholar
Chang, Roland Chiang-Jen. 1977. Co-verbs in spoken Chinese. Taipei: Cheng Chung Book Company.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chapin, Paul G. 1978. Easter Island: A characteristic VSO language. In Lehmann 1978, pp. 139–68.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 1986. Formal and colloquial adversity passives in standard Chinese. Linguistics 24, 6: 1025–52.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. (ed.). 2001a. Sinitic grammar: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2001b. Synchrony and diachrony of Sinitic languages: A brief history of Chinese dialects. In Chappell 2001a, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2001c. A typology of evidential markers in Sinitic languages. In Chappell 2001a, pp. 56–84.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2001d. Dialect grammar in two early modern Southern Min texts: A comparative study of dative kit, comitative cang, and diminutive -guia. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 28,2: 247–302.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2006. From Eurocentrism to Sinocentrism: the case of disposal constructions in Sinitic languages. In Ameka, Dench, and Evans, pp. 441–86.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2008. Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in Sinitic languages. Linguistic Typology 12: 45–98.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2013. Pan-Sinitic object markers: morphology and syntax. In Cao et al. 2013, pp. 785–816.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. (ed.). 2015a. Diversity in Sinitic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2015b. Introduction: Ways of tackling diversity in Sinitic languages. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2105c. Linguistic areas in China for differential object marking, passive, comparative constructions. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 13–52.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. 2017. From verb of saying to discourse marker in Southern Min: (Inter)subjectification and grammaticalization. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 139–65.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. and McGregor, William (eds.). 1996. The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part–whole relation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M., Ming, Li, and Peyraube, Alain. 2007. Chinese linguistics and typology: The state of the art. Linguistic Typology 11, 1: 187–211.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. and Peyraube, Alain. 2011. Grammaticalization in Sinitic languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 784–94.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary M. and Peyraube, Alain 2015. The comparative construction in Sinitic languages: Synchronic and diachronic variation. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 134–54.Google Scholar
Chen, Cheng-Fu. 2005. Object voice and nominalization in Rukai. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 35–47.Google Scholar
Chen, Weirong. 2015. Comparative constructions of inequality in the Southern Min dialect of Huiʼan. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 248–72.Google Scholar
Chen, Weirong Forthcoming. A grammar of Southern Min: The Hui’an dialect. (Sinitic languages of China: Typological descriptions.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chen, Yujie. 2015. The semantic differentiation of demonstratives in Sinitic languages. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 81–109.Google Scholar
Chen, Zhangtai and Xingjian, Li. 1996. Putonghua Jichu Fangyan Jiben Cihuiji (Anthology of the basic vocabulary of the main varieties of Mandarin.) Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Childs, G. Tucker. 1995. A grammar of Kisi, a Southern Atlantic language. (Mouton Grammar Library 16.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chirikba, Viacheslav. 2003. Evidential category and evidential strategy in Abkhaz. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2003, pp. 243–72.Google Scholar
Chisholm, William S. Jr., T. Milic, Louis, and Greppin, John A. C. (eds.). 1984. Interrogativity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Christaller, Johann G. [1875] 1964. A grammar of the Asante and Fante language called Tshi. Basel. Reprinted: Ridgewood, NJ: Gregg Press.Google Scholar
Choi-Jonin, Injoo, Duval, Marc, and Soutet, Olivier (eds.). 2010. Typologie et Comparatisme: Hommages offerts à Alain Lemaréchal. (Supplementa 28.) Leuven and Paris: Peeters, Orbis.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. et al. (eds.). 2009. Language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Jae-Young. 1993. A study on the grammaticalization of dA syntagma in Middle Korean. PhD dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea.Google Scholar
Chung, Jae-Young 1997. Myengsauy mwunpephwa [Grammaticalization of nouns]. Kyujanggak 20: 127–51.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1976. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Clancy, Patricia M. and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1991. Asian discourse and grammar. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 3. Santa Barbara: University of California.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Fox Tree, Jean E.. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84: 73–111.Google Scholar
Clark, Marybeth. 1979. Coverbs: Evidence for the derivation of prepositions from verbs – new evidence from Hmong. Working Papers in Linguistics (Hawaii) 11, 2: 1–12.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike. 1985. Zur Entstehung von Genussystemen: Überlegungen zu einigen theoretischen Aspekten, verbunden mit einer Fallstudie des Zande. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike 1986. To have or not to have: On the conceptual base of predicative possession in some African languages. MS, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike 1993. Die Stellung von Verb und Objekt in Niger-Kongo-Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion historischer Syntax. (Afrikanistische Monographien 1.) Cologne: Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike 1994. Word order change as category change: The Mande case. In Pagliuca 1994, pp. 191–232.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike and Heine, Bernd. 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language 10, 2: 297–335.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike and Heine, Bernd 1989. On the nominal morphology of ‘alienability’ in some African languages. In Newman and Botne 1989, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
Clyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F., and Hofbauer, Carol L. (eds.). 1979. Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1995. The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English. In Bybee and Fleischman 1995, pp. 55–66.Google Scholar
Cole, Desmond T. [1955] 1987. An introduction to Tswana grammar. 5th impression. Cape Town and Johannesburg: Longman.Google Scholar
Colibri, Ediçoes (ed.). 1992. Actas do Colóquio Sobre Crioulos de Base Lexical Portuguesa. Lisbon.Google Scholar
Company Company, Concepción. 2002. Grammaticalization and category weakness. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 201–15.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard 2002. Reconstruction, typology and reality. In Hickey 2003, pp. 243–57.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard and Estrada-Fernández, Zarina (eds.). 2012. Relative clauses in the languages of the Americas: A typological overview. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard and Kuteva, Tania, 2005. The evolution of grammatical structures and ‘functional need’ explanations. In Tallerman, Maggie, Language origins: Perspectives on evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. 1746. Essai sur l’origine des connaissances humaines. Paris.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1987. The morphology/syntax interface: Evidence from possessive adjectives in Slavonic. Language 63, 2: 299–345.Google Scholar
Corne, Chris. 1971. Le patois créole français de la Guyane (St.-Laurent-du-Maroni): Esquisse de grammaire. Te Reo 14: 81–103.Google Scholar
Corne, Chris 1977. Seychelles Creole grammar: Elements for Indian Ocean Proto-Creole reconstruction. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 91.) Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Corne, Chris 1988a. Patterns of subject-object coreference in Seychelles Creole. Te Reo 31: 73–84.Google Scholar
Corne, Chris 1988b. Mauritian Creole reflexives. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3: 69–94.Google Scholar
Corne, Chris 1989. On French influence in the development of Creole reflexive patterns. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 4: 103–15.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2004. The shift from lexical to subjective readings in Spanish prometer ‘to promise’ and amenazar ‘to threaten’: A corpus-based account. Pragmatics 14, 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert 2008. On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-) auxiliaries in Spanish. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert and Toledo y Huerta, Álvaro S. Octavio de. 2017. The diachrony of subjective amenazar ‘threaten’: On Latin-induced grammaticalization in Spanish. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 187–207.Google Scholar
Corominas, J. 1954a. Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana, vol. 2: CH–K, indices. Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Corominas, J. 1954b. Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana, vol. 4: Ri–Z, indices. Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta L., Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid, and Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.). 2009. Formulaic language, vol. 1: Distribution and historical change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.). 1994. Studies on scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1976. Das romanische Verbalsystem, ed. Bertsch, Hansbert. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio 1980. Vom Primat der Geschichte: Oswald Szemerényi zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Sprachwissenschaft 5: 125–45.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2011. On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34: 21–47.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2016. On grammaticalization processes in Ao: sources, pathways, and functional extensions. Lecture presented at the University of Düsseldorf, July 2016.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2018. Grammaticalization processes in the languages of South Asia. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 189–218.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2011. Grammaticalization and conversation. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 424–37.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan. 2000. Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences 22: 447–81.Google Scholar
Cowan, J. Ronayne and Schuh, Russell G.. 1976. Spoken Hausa, part 1: Hausa language-grammar. Ithaca, NY: Spoken Language Services.Google Scholar
Cowie, Claire. 1995. Grammaticalization and the snowball effect (review of Grammaticalization [1993]). Language and Communication 15, 2: 181–93.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1986a. Jacaltec noun classifiers: A study in grammaticalization. Lingua 70: 241–84.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. (ed.). 1986b. Noun Classes and Categorization. (Proceedings of a Symposium on Categorization and Noun Classification, Eugene, OR, October 1983.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1987. Rama relational prefixes: From postpositions to verbal prefixes. In DeLancey and Tomlin 1987, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study of polygrammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 455–92.Google Scholar
Crass, Joachim. 2017. Similarity and related functions in Libido. In Treis and Vanhove 2017, pp. 389–417.Google Scholar
Crass, Joachim and Meyer, Ronny (eds.). 2009. Language contact and language change in Ethiopia. (Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 14.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Crazzolara, Joseph P. [1938] 1955. A study of the Acooli language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crazzolara, Joseph P. 1960. A study of the Logbara (Ma’di) language: Grammar and vocabulary. London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2017a. Similarity, suitability, and non-epistemic modalities (volitionality, ability, and obligation). In Treis and Vanhove 2017, pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis 2017b. Copulas originating from the imperative of ʽsee/lookʼ verbs in Mande languages. In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 45–66.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis In prep.a. Grammaticalization in Tswana. In Bisang and Malchukov, in prep.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis In prep.b. Grammaticalization in Manding languages. In Bisang and Malchukov, in prep.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis and Nouguier-Voisin, Sylvie. 2008. Valency-changing operations in Wolof and the notion of co-participation. In König and Gast 2008, pp. 289–305.Google Scholar
Crellin, Robert and Jügel, Th.. Forthcoming. The perfect in Indo-European. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 1998. Grammaticalization and clause linkage strategies: A typological approach with particular reference to Ancient Greek. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 59–88.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William 1991b. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2006. The relevance of an evolutionary model. In Thomsen 2006, pp. 91–132.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2007. The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics 18, 3: 339–82.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Poole, Keith T.. 2008. Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 1–37.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1982. The Paamese language of Vanuatu. (Pacific Linguistics B-87.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry and Rigsby, Bruce. 1979. Cape York Creole. In Shopen 1979, pp. 152–207.Google Scholar
Cruz, Juan M. de la. 1977. Synchronic-diachronic remarks on the nature of prefixation. Orbis 26, 2: 262–92.Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. 2013. Growing apart in shared grammaticalization. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 251–8.Google Scholar
Csepregi, Márta. 2008. Az osztjak TAHI ‘hely’ szo helye a mondatban. [The place of the Ostyak word TAHI ‘place’ in the sentence.] In Bereczki, Csepregi, and Klima 2008, pp. 125–35.Google Scholar
Csepregi, Marta 2013. Tobbfunkcios morfemakapcsolatok a szurguti hantiban. [Multifunctional morpheme combinations in Surgut Khanty.] Nyelvtudomanyi Kozlemenyek 109: 91–108.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Davidse, Kristin (eds.). 2010. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (ed.). 2000b. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. (EALT/EUROTYP 20, 6.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Bybee and Hopper 2001, pp. 471–80.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. (Studies in Language Companion Series 71.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen 2008. Grammatical resources and linguistic complexity: Sirionó as a language without NP coordination. In Miestamo et al. 2008, pp. 153–64.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen 2009. Two pathways of grammatical evolution. In Givón and Shibatani 2009, pp. 239–48.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic complexity. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 153–62.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen 2015. Grammaticalization in the North: Noun phrase morphosyntax in Scandinavian vernaculars. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 6.) Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds.). 2001a. Circum-Baltic languages: Typology and contact, vol. 1: Past and present. (Studies in Language and Companion Series 54.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (eds.). 2001b. Circum-Baltic languages: Typology and contact, vol. 2: Grammar and typology. (Studies in Language and Companion Series 55.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen and Wälchli, Bernhard. 2016. Perfects and iamitives: Two gram types in one grammatical space. Letras de Hoje 51, 3: 325.Google Scholar
Dahmen, Wolfgang , Günter Holthus, Johannes Kramer, Michael Meltzeltin, Wolfgang Schweickard, and Otto Winkelmann (eds.). 1998. Neuere Beschreibungsmethoden der Syntax romanischer Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael and Moravcsik, Edith. 2005. The associative plural. In Haspelmath et al. 2005, pp. 150–3.Google Scholar
Daniels, Kelsey. 2014. On the grammaticalization of venga ʽcomeʼ as a discourse marker in Peninsular Spanish. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 219–47.Google Scholar
Darmon, Chloé. 2017. The morpheme -(ä)ŋä in Xamtanga: Functions and grammaticalisation targets. In Treis and Vanhove 2017, 359–86.Google Scholar
Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.). 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume 1: General Papers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin et al. (eds.). 2012. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
de León, , see LeónGoogle Scholar
De Guzman, Videa P. and Bender, Byron W. (eds.). 2000. Grammatical analysis of Austronesian and other languages: Studies in honor of Stanley Starosta. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
De Mulder, Walter and Carlier, Anne. 2011. The grammaticalization of definite articles. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 519–31.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 75–104.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Hilário. 2015. Language contact in Nanning: Nanning Pinghua and Nanning Cantonese. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 157–89.Google Scholar
de Wolf, see WolfGoogle Scholar
DeCamp, David et al. (eds.). 1974. Pidgins and creoles: Current trends and prospects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1983. Agentivity and causation: Data from Newari. Berkeley Linguistics Society 9: 54–63.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott 1986. Toward a history of Tai classifier systems. In Craig 1986b, pp. 437–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott 1991. The origins of verb serialization in modern Tibetan. Studies in Language 15, 1: 1–23.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1, 1: 33–52.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott 2004. Grammaticalization: from syntax to morphology. In Booij et al. 2004, pp. 1590–9.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott 2011. Grammaticalization and syntax: A functional perspective. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 365–77.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott and Tomlin, Russell (eds.). 1987. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference. Eugene: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Dempwolff, Otto. 1934–5. Einführung in die Sprache der Nama-Hottentotten. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 25, 1: 30–67.Google Scholar
Denning, Keith. 1987. Obligation and space: The origins of markers of obligative modality. Chicago Linguistic Society 23: 45–55.Google Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona and Markó, Alexandra. 2010. A pilot study of Hungarian discourse markers. Language and Speech 53, 2: 135–80.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985b. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington Press.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.). 1986. Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. (eds.). 1990. Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 2. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. (eds.). 1998. Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 4. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2000. Time and truth: The grammaticalization of resultatives and perfects within a theory of subjectification. Studies in Language 24: 345–77.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich 2004. How cognitive is grammaticalization? The history of the Catalan perfet perifràstic. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 211–27.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard. 2007. Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–81.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2000. Syntactic change in Akkadian: The evolution of sentential complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy 2011. The grammaticalization of quotatives. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 643–52.Google Scholar
Devitt, Dan. 1990. The diachronic development of semantics in copulas. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16: 103–15.Google Scholar
Devitt, Dan 1994. Copula constructions in crosslinguistic and diachronic perspective. PhD dissertation, SUNY-Buffalo.Google Scholar
Devos, Maud 2014. Motion verbs in Shangaci: Lexical semantics and discourse functions. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 281–317.Google Scholar
Devos, Maud and Wal, Jenneke van der. 2010. ʽGoʼ on a rare grammaticalisation path to focus. In van Kampen and Nouwen 2010, pp. 4–58.Google Scholar
Devos, Maud and Wal, Jenneke van der (eds.). 2014. COME and GO off the beaten grammaticalization path. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 272.) Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Devoto, Giacomo and Oli, Gian Carlo. 1971. Dizionario della lingua italiana. Florence: Le Monnier.Google Scholar
Dickens, Patrick. 2005. A concise grammar of Ju’hoan with a Ju’hoan–English glossary and a subject index, ed Vossen, Rainer and Biesele, Megan. (Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 17.) Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1997. The diachronic reanalysis of demonstratives in crosslinguistic perspective. Chicago Linguistic Society 33: 83–98.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 1999a. The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3: 1–49.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 1999b. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 42.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2003. The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27, 3: 635–55.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17, 4: 463–89.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2011. Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 130–41.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1997. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele 2011a. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 450–61.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele 2011b. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49, 2: 365–90.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Ferraresi, Gisella. 2008. Semantic, syntactic and constructional restrictions in the diachronic rise of modal particles in German: A corpus-based study on the formation of a grammaticalization channel. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 77–110.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Smirnova, Elena (eds.). 2010. Paradigmaticity and obligatoriness. Special issue: Acta Linguistica Hafnensia 42, 1.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1987. Copula auxiliation: How and why? In Harris and Ramat 1987, pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, part 2: Complex and derived constructions. (Functional Grammar Series 21.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 1983. The Turkana language. (Publications in African Languages and Linguistics 2.) Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan (ed.). 1986. Current Approaches to African Linguistics, vol. 3. (Publications in African Languages and Linguistics 6.) Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan 1995. The emergence of tense marking in the Nilotic-Bantu borderland as an instance of areal adaptation. In Zima 1995, pp. 29–43.Google Scholar
Disterheft, Dorothy. 1980. The syntactic development of the infinitive in Indo-European. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 1994. Ergativity. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 2002. Australian languages: Their origin and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 2003. Evidentiality in Jarawara. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2003, pp. 165–88.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 2004. The Jarawara language of southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 2010a. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. B. 2010b. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Do-Hurinville, Danh Thành. 2010. Les parties du discours en vietnamien: Grammaticalisation et transcatégorialité. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 105, 1: 327–70.Google Scholar
Doke, Clement M. [1927] 1988. Textbook of Zulu grammar. 6th edn. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.Google Scholar
Doke, Clement M. and Mofokeng, S. M.. [1957] 1985. Textbook of Southern Sotho grammar. 2nd edn. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.Google Scholar
Dombrowsky-Hahn, Klaudia. 2012. Grammaticalization of the deictic verbs ʽcomeʼ and ʽgoʼ in Syer. In Mietzner and Claudi 2012, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
Dostie, Gaetane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck and Larcier.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T. 1978. Some universals of relative clause structure. In Greenberg, Ferguson, and Moravcsik 1978b, pp. 375–418.Google Scholar
Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Yesterday’s affixes as today’s clitics: A case-study in degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 67–81.Google Scholar
Dragomirescu, Adina and Nicolae, Alexandru 2014. The multiple grammaticalization of Romanian veni ʽcomeʼ: Focusing on the passive construction. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 69–100.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rainer, Franz (eds.). 2005. Morphology and its demarcations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Driem, George van. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. (Mouton Grammar Library 4.) Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drinka, Birgit. 2012. The Balkan perfects: Grammaticalization and contact. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 511–58.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006a. Functionalism and the theory-metalanguage confusion. In Wiebe et al. 2006, pp. 27–59.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006b. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Ameka, Dench, and Evans 2006, pp. 207–234.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008. The verbs for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea. Language 84, 3: 528–65.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald and Vogt, Carlos. 1979. De magis à mais: Une hypothèse sémantique. Revue de Lingistique Romane 43: 317–41.Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas and Stark, Elisabeth. 2008. Double direct object marking in Spanish and Italian. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 111–29.Google Scholar
Dunn, Andrea Susan. The pragmatics of selected discourse markers in Swahili. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Early, Robert. 2000. Sit, stand, lie: Posture verbs and imperfective. In Palmer, B. and Geraghty, P. (eds.), Sicol. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics, vol. 2: Historical and descriptive studies. (Pacific Linguistics 505.) Canberra: Australian National University, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
Ebermann, Erwin. 1986. Kleines Wörterbuch der Bambara-Sprache (Deutsch–Bambara, Bambara–Deutsch). Vienna: Afro-Pub.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1987. Discourse function of motion verbs in Chadic. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere (AAP, Cologne) 10: 53–71.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1991. Vom Verbum dicendi zur Konjunktion: Ein Kapitel universaler Grammatikentwicklung. In Bisang and Rinderknecht 1991, pp. 77–95.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, Regine. 2011. Grammaticalization and semantic change. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 389–400.Google Scholar
Eckhardt, Regine 2012. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis. In Maienborn et al. 2012, pp. 2675–702.Google Scholar
Eckkrammer, Eva Martha. 2001. Grammatikalisierungsaspekte des Kreolischen der ABC-Inseln. In Schäfer-Prieß et al. 2001, pp. 169–190.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2017. The subjective and intersubjective uses of ‘fail to’ and ‘not fail to’. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 167–96.Google Scholar
Elliott, Jennifer R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4, 1: 55–90.Google Scholar
Emanatian, Michele. 1992. Chagga ‘come’ and ‘go’: Metaphor and the development of tense-aspect. Studies in Language 16, 1: 1–33.Google Scholar
Emkow, Carola. 2001. Intensifiers and reflexive markers from a typological perspective. MA thesis, Free University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Eom, Sujin. 2003. Grammaticalization of quasi-modal auxiliaries: With special reference to be going to and have to. Journal of Linguistic Science 24: 167–88.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2005. Areal diffusion and the development of evidentiality: Evidence from Hup. Studies in Language 29, 3: 617–50.Google Scholar
Erbaugh, Mary S. 1986. Taking stock: The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. In Craig 1986b, pp. 339–436.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba and you know. Studier i modern sprakvetenskap 10: 76–92.Google Scholar
Ernszt, Martina. 2012. On the different uses of the deictic directional verbs ʽgoʼ and ʽcomeʼ in Nǁng. In Mietzner and Claudi 2012, pp. 115–26.Google Scholar
Escure, Geneviève. 2012. The grammaticalization of evidential markers in Garifuna. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 357–80.Google Scholar
Esseesy, Mohssen 2018. Typological features of grammaticalization in Semitic. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
Essien, Okon E. 1982. The so-called reflexive pronouns and reflexivization in Ibibio. Studies in African Linguistics 13, 2: 93–108.Google Scholar
Estrada-Fernández, Zarina. 2005. The pronominal form a- in Pima Bajo as a middle marker. International Journal of American Linguistics 71, 3: 277–302.Google Scholar
Estrada-Fernández, Zarina 2012. From demonstrative to a relative marker to clause linker: The relative clause formation in Pima Bajo. In Comrie and Estrada-Fernández 2012, pp. 127–46.Google Scholar
Estrada-Fernández, Zarina 2015. Grammaticalization pathways in Uto-Aztecan languages spoken at the highlands of northwestern Mexico: A diachronic view of how intragenetic variation evolves. Paper presented at the symposium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization Scenarios”, Mainz, 12–14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Evans, M. fl., and Thomas, W. D.. 1963. J geiriadur Mawr (The Complete Welsh–English English–Welsh Dictionary). Llyfrau’r Dryw: Llandybie a gwasg Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas 2003. Bininj Gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. 2 vols. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honoré (eds.). 2016. Insubordination. (Typological Studies in Language.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.). 2006. The Blackwell companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Everbroeck, René van. 1958. Grammaire et exercises lingala. Anvers-Leopoldville: Standaard-Boekhandel S.A.Google Scholar
Everbroeck, René van 1969. Le lingala parlé et écrit. 4th edn. Anvers-Leopoldville: Standaard-Boekhandel S.A.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. and Kern, Barbara. 1997. Wari’: The Pakaas Novos language of Western Brazil. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2008. Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ezard, Bryan. 1997. A grammar of Tawala: An Austronesian language of the Milne Bay area, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific Linguistics C-137.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard. [1977] 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. [PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1977.] New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, María López-Couso, José, and Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.). 2002. English historical syntax and morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara, Manzelli, Gianguido, and Ramat, Paolo. 2013. Gradualness in contact-induced constructional replication: The Abstract Possession Construction in the Circum-Mediterranean area. In Giacalone Ramat, Mauri, and Molinelli 2013, pp. 391–417.Google Scholar
Fehn, Anne-Maria. 2014. A grammar of Ts’ixa (Kalahari Khoe). PhD dissertation. University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Feist, Timothy Richard. 2015. A grammar of Skolt Saami. Helsinki: Finno-Ugrian Society.Google Scholar
Feldman, Harry. 1986. A grammar of Awtuw. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 94.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Fernándey, Zarina Estrada et al. (eds.). 2008. Studies in voice and transitivity. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Fernándey, Zarina Estrada 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferrari, A. (ed.). 2009. Sintassi storica e sincronia dell’italiano: subordinazione, coordinazione, giustapposizione, vol. 1. Florence: Cesati.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita, Meibauer, Jörg, and Wiese, Heike (eds.). 2016. Pejoration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2000. Grammaticalisation: Unidirectional, non-reversable? In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein 2000, pp. 149–69.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2010a. An analogical approach to grammaticalisation. In Stathi, Gehweiler, and König 2010, pp. 181–220.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2010b. On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann’s parameters and the issue of scope. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2011. Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2013. An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization: On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. Studies in Language 37, 3: 515–33.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry (eds.). 2004a. Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 59.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry 2004b. Introduction: In search of grammaticalization. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.). 2000. Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, Wolfdietrich and Jastrow, Otto. [1977] 1991. Lehrgang für die arabische Schriftsprache der Gegenwart, vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1985. Historical semantics, historical word formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Minkova, Donka 2008. Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982a. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 36.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne 1982b. The past and the future: Are they coming or going? Berkeley Linguistics Society 8: 322–34.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne 1983. From pragmatics to grammar: Diachronic reflections on complex pasts and futures in Romance. Lingua 60: 183–214.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne 1989. Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13, 1: 1–50.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne 1999. Pragmatic markers in comparative and historical perspective: Theoretical implications of a case study. Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada, August 1999.Google Scholar
Floricic, Franck. 2010. Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale. (Langages.) Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar
Fodor, István. 1959. The origin of grammatical gender. Lingua 8, 1: 1–41; 8, 2: 186–214.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. (ed.). 1993. The role of theory in language description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1993. De betekenis van partikels. PhD thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Jensen, Eva Skafte, Mogensen, Jens Erik, and Schøsler, Lene (eds.). 2005. Historical Linguistics 2003: Selected papers from the 16th International Conference of Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen, 11–15 August 2003. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fortune, George. 1955. An analytical grammar of Shona. London, Cape Town, and New York: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara (ed.). 1996. Studies in anaphora. (Typological Studies in Language 33.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.). 1994. Voice: Form and function. (Typological Studies in Language 27.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Jurafsky, Daniel, and Michaelis, Laura A. (eds.). 1999. Cognition and function in language. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fox, Greg J. 1979. Big Nambas grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 60.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1987a. Encoding locative in Chadic. Journal of West African Languages 17, 1: 81–97.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1987c. Venitive and centrifugal in Chadic. Afrika und Übersee 70, 1: 31–47.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1989. A grammar of Pero. (Frankfurter Studien zur Afrikanistik 4.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1991a. The de dicto domain in language. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 219–51.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1991b. A dictionary of Mupun. (Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 11.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1993. A grammar of Mupun. (Sprache und Oralität in Afrika 14.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1996a. On sources of demonstratives and anaphors. In Fox 1996, pp. 169–203.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1996b. Grammaticalization of the complex sentence: A case study in Chadic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1997a. Grammaticalization of number: From demonstrative to nominal and verbal plural. Linguistic Typology 1: 193–242.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1997b. Domains of affected subject and coreferentiality: System interactional approach to the study of reflexives. MS, Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 2001. A grammar of Lele. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 2005. Grammaticalization of switch reference: Motivation and means. In Voeltz 2005, pp. 113–30.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 2008. Grammaticalization, typology and semantics: Expanding the agenda. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 61–102.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 2010. Grammaticalization within and outside of a domain. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 43–62.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 2011. Grammaticalization of reference systems. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 622–32.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S. (eds.). 2000a. Reflexives: Forms and functions. (Typological Studies in Language 40.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Curl, Traci S. (eds.). 2000b. Reciprocals: Forms and functions. (Typological Studies in Language 41.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David S. (eds.). 2004. Linguistic diversity and language theories. (Studies in Language Companion Series 72.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and Johnston, Eric. 2005. A grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer 2006, pp. 395–413.Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara 2009. Die Entwicklung deiktischer Ausdrücke zu Diskursmarkern im Kontext von Interaktionsanalyse und Sprachwandelforschung. In Maaß and Schrott 2009, pp. 283–305.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 191–223.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Hans von der. 1861. Über das Passivum: Eine sprachvergleichende Abhandlung. Abhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 8: 450–546.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 1998. Some remarks on analogy, reanalysis and grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 89–105.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio 2008. Mismatch: Grammatical distortion and grammaticalization. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 103–27.Google Scholar
Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1928. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der französischen Sprache.Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
García, Erica C. 1985. Quantity into quality: Synchronic indeterminacy and language change. Lingua 65: 275–306.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A. 1957. Egyptian grammar: Being an introduction to the study of Hieroglyphs. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew 2008. Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good 2008, pp. 125–43.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and der Auwera, Johan van. 2012. What is “contact-induced grammaticalization”? Examples from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean languages. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 381–426.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and der Auwera, Johan van 2013. Scalar additive operators in Transeurasian languages: A comparison with Europe. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 113–45.Google Scholar
Gebreyes, Abinet Sine. 2016. Grammaticalization in Ethiosemitic with comparisons to Oromo. (Studies in African Linguistics 91.) Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 1993. The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2010. Features in reanalysis and grammaticalization. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 129–47.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2011a. Grammaticalization and generative grammar: A difficult liaison. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 43–55.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van 2011b. The grammaticalization of agreement. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 488–98.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van (ed.). 2016. The linguistic cycle continued. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1986. The development of subordinators from postpositions in Bodic languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 387–400.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol 1991. From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 227–55.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari Dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILLAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Geniušiene, Emma. 1987. The typology of reflexives. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 2.) Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
George, Isaac. 1971. The á-construction in Nupe: Perfective, stative, causative, or instrumental? In Kim and Stahlke 1971, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter (eds.). 1992. Internal and external factors in syntactic change. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 61.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gething, Thomas W., Harris, Jimmy G., and Kullavanijaya, Pranee (eds.). 1976. Tai linguistics in honor of Fang-Kuei Li. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna. 1995. Iconicity in grammaticalization processes. In Simone 1995, pp. 119–39.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 107–28.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2001. Emergent auxiliaries and the theory of grammaticalization. In Schaner-Wolles et al. 2001, pp. 121–31.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2008. Areal convergence in grammaticalization processes. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 129–67.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna 2017. Passives and constructions that resemble passives. Folia Linguistica Historica 51: 151-76.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Guiliano (eds.). 1987. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 48.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.). 1998. The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Mauri, Caterina. 2008. From cause to contrast: A study in semantic change. In Verhoeven et al. 2008, 303–21.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Mauri, Caterina 2009. Dalla continuità temporale al contrasto: La grammaticalizazione di tuttavia come connettivo coordinativo. In Ferrari 2009, pp. 449–70.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Mauri, Caterina 2011. The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 653–64.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Mauri, Caterina, and Molinelli, Piera. 2013. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. (Studies in Language Companion Series 133.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Ramat, Paolo. 2016. Scripta linguistica minora. Milan: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Sansò, Andrea. 2007. The spread and decline of indefinite man-constructions in European languages: An areal perspective. In Ramat and Roma 2007, pp. 95–131.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna and Sansò, Andrea 2014. Venire (ʽcomeʼ) as a passive auxiliary in Italian. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar
Giannini, Stefania. 1998. Discourse and pragmatic conditions of grammaticalization: Spatial deixis and locative configurations in the personal pronoun system of some Italian dialect areas. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 129–45.Google Scholar
Giger, Markus. 2012. The “recipient passive” in West Slavic: A calque from German and its grammaticalization. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 559–88.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1993. The development of tense markers from demonstrative pronouns in Panare (Cariban). Studies in Language 17: 53–73.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike (ed.). 2000. Reconstructing grammar: Comparative linguistics and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Girnth, Heiko. 2000. Untersuchungen zur Theorie der Grammatikalisierung am Beispiel des Westmitteldeutschen. (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 223.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2011. Constructions, word grammar, and grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 1: 155–82.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas and Patten, Amanda. 2011. Construction Grammar and grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 92–104.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1975a. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Li 1975a, pp. 47–112.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1975b. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li 1975a, pp. 149–88.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1975c. Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics 6, 2: 185–207.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1979a. On understanding grammar. New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1979b. Discourse and syntax. (Syntax and Semantics, 12.) New York, San Francisco, and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4, 3: 333–77.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2, 1: 35–53.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1991a. Serial verbs and the mental reality of ‘event’: Grammatical vs cognitive packaging. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 81–127.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 1991b. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 257–310.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2000. Internal reconstruction: As method, as theory. In Gildea 2000, pp. 107–60.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2001. Syntax: an introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2005. Context as other minds. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2006. Multiple routes to clause union: the diachrony of syntactic complexity. MS, Eugene, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2008. On the relational properties of passive clauses. In Fernándey et al. 2008, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2015. The diachrony of grammar, 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy and Shibatani, Masayoshi (eds.). 2009. Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy and Yang, Lynne. 1994. The rise of the English get-passive. In Fox and Hopper 1994, pp. 119–49.Google Scholar
Glaser, Elvira. 2006. Zur Syntax des Lëtzebuergeschen: Skizze und Forschungsprogramm. In Moulin and Nübling 2006, pp. 225–44.Google Scholar
Glinert, L. 1989. The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1985. A grammar of Yankunytjatjara. Alice Springs, Australia: Institute for Aboriginal Development.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff 1995. Who are we? The natural semantics of pronouns. Language Sciences 17, 1: 99–121.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.). 1994. Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. (Studies in Language Companion Series 25.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goedegebuure, Petra. 2013. Split-ergativity in Hittite. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 102, 2: 270–303.Google Scholar
Goldap, Christel and Stolz, Thomas. 1993. Universal and areal components of grammaticalization: Preliminary hypotheses. MS, Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, Sebastião Carlos Leite, Casseb-Galvão, Cristina dos Santos Carvalho, Longhin-Thomazi, Sanderléia Roberta, Dias, Nilza Barrozo, and Rodrigues, Angélica Terezinha Carmo. 2007. Introdução à gramaticalização: Princípios teóricos & aplicação. Em homenagem à Maria Luiza Braga. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial.Google Scholar
Gonen, Einat, Livnat, Zohar, and Amir, Noam. 2015. The discourse marker axshav (ʽnowʼ) in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Discursive and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics 89, 1: 69–84.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff (ed.). 2008. Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Morris. 1964. A comparative study of Creole French dialects. (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 4.) London, The Hague, and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gordon, Lynn. 1986. Maricopa morphology and syntax. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 108.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Anthony P. 1996. The evolution of functional categories in Grand Ronde Chinook Jargon: Ethnolinguistic and grammatical considerations. In Baker and Syea 1996, pp. 225–42.Google Scholar
Grant, Anthony P. 2012. Processes of grammaticalisation and “borrowing the unborrowable”: Contact-induced change and the integration and grammaticalisation of borrowed terms for some core grammatical construction types. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 191–232.Google Scholar
Greed, Teija. 2014. The expression of knowledge in Tatar. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2014, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Green, John N. 1987. The evolution of Romance auxiliaries: Criteria and chronology. In Harris and Ramat 1987, pp. 257–67.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, Ferguson, and Moravcsik 1978a, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1985. Some iconic relationships among place, time, and discourse deixis. In Haiman 1985a, pp. 271–87.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. The last stages of grammatical elements: Contractive and expansive desemanticization. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 301–14.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1995. The diachronic typological approach to language. In Shibatani and Bynon 1995, pp. 145–66.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.). 1978a. Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.). 1978b. Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Edgar A. 1977. Language in Africa: An introductory survey. New York, Paris, and London: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Grégoire, Claire. 1984. Le syntagme déterminatif en mandé nord. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 6, 2: 173–93.Google Scholar
Greisinger, Isabella. 2016. Die Unidirektionalität des grammatischen Wandels: Studien zur Diachronie der deutschen, englischen und niederländischen Adverbialsätze im Kontext der Interaktion zwischen Grammatikalisierungsforschung, Generativer Grammatik und Indogermanistik. PhD dissertation, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul 1967/1989. Logic and conversation. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Griefenow-Mewis, Catherine and Bitima, Tamene 1994. Lehrbuch des Oromo: Eine praktische Einführung. (Afrikawissenschaftliche Lehrbücher 5.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 2002. Making sense of nominal classification systems: Noun classifiers and the grammaticalization variable. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 259–75.Google Scholar
Grozdanovič, Jadranka (ed.). 1999. Numeral types and changes worldwide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünthal, Riho. 2003. Finnic adpositions and cases in change. Helsinki: Société Finno-ougrienne.Google Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine and Françoise, Rose. 2010. Sociative causative markers in South American languages: A possible areal feature. In Floricic 2010, pp. 383–402.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 1999a. Toward a grammaticalization and typological account of the ka-possessive in southern Nguni. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20: 157–84.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom 1999b. Head-initial meets head-final: Nominal suffixes in eastern and southern Bantu from a historical perspective. Studies in African Linguistics 28, 1: 49–91.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom 1999c. The genesis of verbal negation in Banu and its dependency on functional features of clause types. In Hombert and Hyman 1999, pp. 545–87.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom 2005. Complex predicates based on generic auxiliaries as an areal feature in Northeast Africa. In Voeltz 2005, 131–54.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. and Wilson, Robert. 1971. Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border in India. In Hymes 1971, pp. 151–67.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180: 409–46.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang et al. 2004, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
Guo, Jiansheng, Lieven, Elena, Budwig, Nancy, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Nakamura, Keiko, and Ozcaliskan, Seyda (eds.). 2008. Crossliguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Ha, Chi-Gun. 2003. A study on the grammaticalization process of the de-constituent sentence. Han-Geul 261: 97–121.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1977. From auxiliary verb phrase to inflexional suffix. In Li 1977, pp. 525–37.Google Scholar
Haase, Martin. 1992. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel im Baskenland: Die Einflüsse des Gaskognischen und Französischen auf das Baskische. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Haase, Martin 1994. Respekt: die Grammatikalisierung von Höflichkeit. (Edition Linguistik 44.) Munich, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1975. Le problème linguistique des prépositions et la solution chinoise: Avec un essai de typologie à travers plusieurs groupes de langues. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude 1978. Du thème au thème en passant par le sujet: Pour une théorie cyclique. La Linguistique 14, 2: 3–38.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude 1993. The language builder: An essay on the human signature in linguistic morphogenesis. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 94.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hagman, Roy S. 1977. Nama Hottentot grammar. (Indiana University Publications, Language Science Monographs 15.) Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2001. Linguistic diffusion in present-day East Anatolia: From top to bottom. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001, pp. 195–224.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey 2018. Grammaticalization and inflectionalization in Iranian. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 57–78.Google Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.). 1985a. Iconicity in syntax. (Typological Studies in Language 6.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John 1987. On some origins of medial verb morphology in Papuan languages. Studies in Language 11, 2: 347–64.Google Scholar
Haiman, John 1999. Auxiliation in Khmer: The case of BAAN. Studies in Language 23, 1: 149–72.Google Scholar
Haiman, John 2011. Iconicity versus grammaticalization: A case study. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 462–74.Google Scholar
Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1988. Clause combining in grammar and discourse. (Typological Studies in Language 18.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halász, Elöd. 1973. Handwörterbuch der ungarischen und deutschen Sprache, vol. 1: Ungarisch-Deutsch. Berlin, Munich, and Zürich: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1982. Some essential features of Warlpiri verbal clauses. In Stephen 1982, pp. 217–315.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken 1994. Core structures and adjuncts in Walpiri syntax. In Corver and van Riemsdijk 1994, pp. 185–219.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1944. Chinese Pidgin English: Grammar and texts. Journal of the American Oriental Society 64: 95–113.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1953. Haitian Creole: Grammar, texts, vocabulary. American Anthropologist 55, 2, 2. Memoir 74.Google Scholar
Hamel, Patricia. 1993. Serial verbs in Loniu and an evolving preposition. Oceanic Linguistics 32–1: 111–32.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.). 1988. Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, and Wirth, Jessica (eds.). 1988. Studies in syntactic typology. (Typological Studies in Language 17.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hamunen, Markus Veli Juhani. 2017. On the grammaticalization of Finnish colorative constructions. Constructions and Frames 9, 1: 101–38.Google Scholar
Han, Yong-un. 2001. A study on the process of grammaticalization in Korean: Focusing upon majeo and boda. International Language and Literature 4: 109–24.Google Scholar
Han, Yong-un 2003. Ene tanwi pyenhwawa cosahwa [Change of linguistic units and “particlization”]. Seoul: Hankook Publisher.Google Scholar
Han, Young-Gyun. 2004. Grammaticalization and changes in collocation: The case of verb iss-. Journal of Korean Linguistics 44: 211–37.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie. 2015. The grammaticalization of final but: From conjunction to final particle. In Hancil, Haselow, and Post 2015, pp. 197–217.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Breban, Tine, and Lozano, José Vicente (eds.). 2018. New trends in grammaticalization and language change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Haselow, Alexander, and Post, Margje (eds.). 2015, Final particles. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 284.) Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie and König, Ekkehard (eds.). 2014. Grammaticalization theory and data. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ian F., Polomé, Edgar, Goodman, Morris, and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1979. Readings in creole studies. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia P.V.B.A.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn. 2017. What happens after grammaticalization? Post-grammaticalization processes in the area of modality. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 257–80.Google Scholar
Hansen, Björn and Birzer, Sandra. 2012. The Yiddish modal system between Germanic and Slavonic: A study on the limits of contact induced grammaticalization. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 427–64.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2011. Negative cycles and grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 568–76.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter and Boye, Kasper. 2011. Grammaticalization and functional linguistics. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
Harms, P. L. 1994. Epena Pedee syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in crosslinguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1980. The marking of definiteness: A diachronic perspective. In Traugott, Labrum, and Shepherd 1980, pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin and Ramat, Paolo (eds.). 1987. Historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon P. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. (PALI language texts. Micronesia.) Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon P. 2017. Left vs right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 157–86.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10, 1–2: 287–310.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14, 1: 25–72.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1994. The growth of affixes in morphological analysis. In Booij and van Marle 1994, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1997b. From space to time: Temporal adverbs in the world’s languages. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22, 2: 315–51.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37, 6: 1043–68.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison. In Tomasello 2003, pp. 211–42.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2004a. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 17–44.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2004b. Coordinating constructions. (Typological Studies in Language 58.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2004c. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Haspelmath 2004b, pp. 3–39.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2008. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Good 2008, pp. 185–214.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2011. The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 342–55.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera 1998, pp. 277–334.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.). 2001. Language typology and linguistic universals: An international handbook. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haßler, Gerda. 2002. Crosslinguistic and diachronic remarks on the grammaticalization of aspect in Romance languages: Location and motion verb. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 163–79.Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1991. The grammaticalization of motion (and time) in Tzotzil. Working Paper 2. Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. and Gell-Mann, Murray (eds.). 1992. The evolution of human language: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Evolution of Human Languages, held August, 1989 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Santa Fe: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto and Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2006. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language 30: 485–540.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto and Yoon, Kyung-Eun. 2010. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. In Amiridze, Nino, Davis, Boyd H., and Maclagan, Margaret (eds.), Fillers, pauses and placeholders. (Typological Studies in Language 93.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 33–65.Google Scholar
Hayward, Richard J. (ed.). 1990. Omotic language studies. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1999a. A grammar of Koyra Chiini: The Songhay of Timbuktu. (Mouton Grammar Library 19.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey 1999b. A grammar of Koyraboro (Koroboro) Senni. (Westafrikanische Studien 19.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Heikkinen, Terttu. 1987. An outline of the grammar of the !Xu language spoken in Ovamboland and West Kavango. (South African Journal of African Languages 7, Supplement 1.) Pretoria: African Languages Association of Southern Africa.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1973. Pidgin-Sprachen im Bantu-Bereich. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 3.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1982a. Boni dialects. (Language and Dialect Atlas of Kenya 10.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1982b. The Nubi language of Kibera – an Arabic creole: Grammatial sketch and vocabulary. (Language and Dialect Atlas of Kenya 3.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1989. Adpositions in African languages. Linguistique Africaine 2: 77–127.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1994a. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In Pagliuca 1994, pp. 255–87.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1994b. On the genesis of aspect in African languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 20, Parasession.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1995. The German werden-future. In Abraham, Givón, and Thompson 1995, pp. 119–38.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1997a. Possession: Sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1997b. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1997c. Grammaticalization theory and its relevance for African linguistics. In Herbert 1997, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1997d. Grammaticalization and language universals. In Lemaréchal 1997, pp. 11–23.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1999. The ||Ani: Grammatical notes and texts. Khoisan Forum (Cologne) 11. University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2000a. On the rise of new-event markers in Khwe. In Vossen et al. 2000, pp. 269‒84.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2000b. Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages. In Frajzyngier and Curl 2000b, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2003b. On degrammaticalization. In Blake, Burridge, and Taylor 2003, pp. 163–79.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2004. On genetic motivation in grammar. In Radden and Panther 2004, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2008a. Constraints on contact-induced linguistic change. Journal of Language Contact – Thema 2: 57–90.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2008b. Contact-induced word order change without word order change. In Siemund and Kintana 2008, pp. 33–60.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2011a. Grammaticalization in African languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 694–705.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2011b. Areas of grammaticalization and geographical typology. In Hieda, König, and Nakagawa 2011, pp. 41–66.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2011c. Grammaticalization of cases. In Malchukov and Spencer 2011, pp. 458–69.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51, 6: 1205–47.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2014. Explaining language structure: On categorial misbehavior in Walman (Papua New Guinea). In Hancil and König 2014, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2015. The body in language: Observations from grammaticalization. In Brenzinger and Kraska-Szlenk 2015, pp. 11–32.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2016. Language contact and extra-clausal constituents: The case of discourse markers. In Kaltenböck, Keizer, and Lohmann 2016, pp. 244–72.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2018a. Grammaticalization in Africa: Two contrasting hypotheses. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 16–34.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 2018b. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In Hancil, Breban, and Lozano 2018, pp. 23–54.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Claudi, Ulrike. 1986. On the rise of grammatical categories: Some examples from Maa. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 13.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991a. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike 1991b. From cognition to grammar: evidence from African languages. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 149–87.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Dunham, Margaret. 2010. Grammaticalization in Bantu languages with special reference to Swahili. In Legère and Thornell 2010, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Güldemann, Tom, Kilian-Hatz, Christa, Lessau, Donald A., Roberg, Heinz, Schladt, Mathias, and Stolz, Thomas. 1993. Conceptual shift: A lexicon of grammaticalization processes in African languages. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere (AAP, Cologne) 34–5.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1988. On the fate of Ewe ví ‘child’ – the development of a diminutive marker. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere (APP, Cologne) 16: 97–121.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, and Kuteva, Tania. 2015. Some observations on the evolution of final particles. In Hancil, Haselow, and Post 2015, pp. 111–40.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, and Kuteva, Tania 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Evans and Watanabe 2016, pp. 39–63.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Bischoff and Jany 2013, pp. 175–233.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania, and Long, Haiping 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics 55, 4: 813–55.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Christa, König. 2005. Grammatical hybrids: between serialization, compounding and derivation in !Xun (North Khoisan). In Dressler et al. 2005, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Christa, König 2010a. On the linear order of ditransitive objects. Language Sciences 32: 87–131.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Christa, König 2010b. The Labwor language of northeastern Uganda: A grammatical sketch. (Studies in Nilotic Linguistics 1.) Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Christa, König 2015. The !Xun language: A dialect grammar of Northern Khoisan. (Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 33.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002a. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2002b. On the evolution of grammatical forms. In Wray 2002, pp. 376–98.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27, 3: 529–72.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact 3.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2007. The genesis of grammar: a reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2009. The genesis of grammar: On combining nouns. In Botha and de Swart 2009, pp. 139–77.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2011. The areal dimension of grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 291–301.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2012. Grammaticalization theory as a tool for reconstructing language evolution. In Tallerman and Gibson 2012, pp. 512–27.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, and Narrog, Heiko. 2017. Back again to the future: How to account for directionality in grammatical change? In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Leyew, Zelealem. 2008. Is Africa a linguistic area? In Heine and Nurse 2008, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Miyashita, Hiroyuki. 2004. Drohen und versprechen – zur Genese von funktionalen Kategorien. Neue Beiträge zur Germanistik 3, 2: 9–33.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Miyashita, Hiroyuki 2008a. Accounting for a functional category: German drohen ‘to threaten’. Language Sciences 30: 53–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Miyashita, Hiroyuki 2008b. The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: a grammaticalization perspective. In König and Gast 2008, pp. 169–223.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.). 2010a. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko 2010b. Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Heine and Narrog 2010a, pp. 401–23.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Narrog, Heiko, and Long, Haiping. 2016. Constructional change vs grammaticalization: From compounding to derivation. Studies in Language 40, 1: 137–75.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Nomachi, Motoki. 2010. Is Europe a linguistic area? In Nomachi 2010, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Nomachi, Motoki 2013. Contact-induced replication: Some diagnostics. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 67–100.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Nurse, Derek (eds.). 2008. A linguistic geography of Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Reh, Mechthild. 1982. Patterns of grammaticalization in African languages. AKUP 47 (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts.) Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Reh, Mechthild 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Song, Kyung-An. 2010. On the genesis of personal pronouns: Some conceptual sources. Language and Cognition 2, 1: 117–48.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Song, Kyung-An 2011. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 47: 587–630.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Stolz, Thomas. 2008. Grammaticalization as a creative process. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 61, 4: 326–57.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard and Buscha, Joachim. 1986. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Held, Gerrit J. 1942. Grammatica van het Waropensch (Nederlandsch Noord Niew-Guinea). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hellinger, Marlis. 1979. Across base language boundaries: The creole of Belize (British Honduras). In Hancock et al. 1979, pp. 315–33.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005. Typologie und Diffusion von Höflichkeitspronomina in Europa. Folia Linguistica 39, 3–4: 417–52.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes 2017. On the grammaticalization of demonstratives in Hoocąk and other Siouan languages. In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 135–72.Google Scholar
Heltoft, Lars 2011. Word order change as grammaticalisation. In Nørgård-Sørensen et al. 2011, pp. 171–235.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal predication: Theory, typology, diachrony. (Functional Grammar Series 15.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees 2011. The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 577–91.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, Narrog, Heiko, and Olbertz, Hella (eds.). 2017. The grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heo, Jae Young. 2000. Phwulimal twuta-uy mwunpephwa [Grammaticalization of the verb twuta]. Kyereemunhak 25: 181–96.Google Scholar
Heo, Jae Young 2007. Grammaticalization of Korean supplement postpositional words. Hanminjok Mwunhwa Yenkwu (The Association for Korean Cultural Studies) 22: 59–79.Google Scholar
Herlin, Ilona and Kotilainen, Lari. 2004. External factors behind crosslinguistic similarities. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 263–80.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 1988. Aspect as a discourse category in Tamil. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 280–92.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 1991. The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 253–84.Google Scholar
Hess, Harwood. 1968. The syntactic structure of Mezquital Otomi. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Heusing, Gerald. 2004. Die südlichen Lwoo-Sprachen: Beschreibung, Vergleich und Rekonstruktion. (Nilo-Saharan 19.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Heusing, Gerald 2002. Reconstruction, typology and reality. In Hickey 2003, pp. 243–57.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2003. Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hieda, Osamu (ed.). 2012, Challenges in Nilotic linguistics and more, phonology, morphology and syntax. (Studies in Nilotic Linguistics 5.) Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Hieda, Osamu, König, Christa, and Nakagawa, Hirosi (eds.). 2011. Geographical typology and linguistic areas, with special reference to Africa. (Studies in Linguistics 2.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Higashiizumi, Yuko. 2017. Periphery of utterances and (inter) subjectification in Modern Japanese: A case study of competing causal conjunctions and connective particles. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 135–55.Google Scholar
Hilders, J. H. and Lawrance, J. C. D.. 1956. An introduction to the Ateso language. (Eagle Language Study Series.) Kampala: Eagle Press.Google Scholar
Hilders, J. H. and Lawrance, J. C. D. 1958. An English-Ateso and Ateso-English vocabulary. Nairobi, Kampala, and Dar es-Salaam: Eagle Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Kenneth C. (ed.). 1979. The genesis of language. (The First Michigan Colloquium, 1979.) Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. (Constructional Approaches to Language 7.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2010. What can synchronic gradience tell us about reanalysis? Verb-first conditionals in written German and Swedish. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2011. Grammaticalization in Germanic languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 706–16.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26, 1: 113–47.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. (Linguistische Arbeiten 362.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer 2004, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Hiraga, Masako, Sinha, Chris, and Wilcox, Sherman (eds.). 1999. Cultural, psychological and typological issues in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam, New York, and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ho, Kwang Su. 1999. Pocoyongen pota kwusenguy yeksacek pyenchen [Historical change of pota-construction auxiliaries]. Journal of Korean Language and Literature 34: 151–78.Google Scholar
Ho, Mian Lian and Wong, Irene. 2001. The use of ever in Singaporean English. World Englishes 20: 79–87.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1998. On the (non)loss of the polarity sensitive Dutch ooit. In Hogg and van Bergen, pp. 101–14.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack 2008. The emergence of particle clusters in Dutch: Grammaticalization under adverse conditions. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 131–49.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Carl. 1963. A grammar of the Margi language. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuition. In Lindquist and Mair 2004, pp. 171–210.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. and van Bergen, Linda (eds.). 1998. Historical linguistics 1995. Selected papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, August 1995, vol. 2: Germanic linguistics. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 162.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hollenbach, Barbara E. 1995. Semantic and syntactic extensions of body-part terms in Mixtecan: The case of ‘face’ and ‘foot’. International Journal of American Linguistics 61, 2: 168–90.Google Scholar
Holm, John A. 1988. Pidgins and creoles, vol. 1: Theory and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie and Hyman, Larry M. (eds.). 1999. Bantu historical linguistics. Stanford CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Honda, Akira. 1998. Further notes on deverbal postpositions: A commentary on Matsumoto’s paper. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 61–5.Google Scholar
Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, and Heine, Bernd 2017. Grammaticalization studies in the new millennium. Studies on Historical Linguistics 11: 236–65.Google Scholar
Hony, Henry C. 1957. Turkish-English dictionary. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter Edwin. 1988. Paradigmaticization: A case study from South Asia. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 293–303.Google Scholar
Hook, Peter Edwin 1991. The emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan languages. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 59–89.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1982. Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. The paradigm at the end of the universe. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, pp. 147–58.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Martin, Janice. 1987. Structuralism and diachrony: The development of the indefinite article in English. In Ramat, Carruba, and Bernini 1987, pp. 295–304.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). 1982. Studies in transitivity. (Syntax and Semantics 15.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd rev. edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 1998. On the polyfunctionality of the Japanese particle no: From the perspectives of ontology and grammaticalization. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 169–92.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru 2008. The grammaticalization of nominalizers in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive study. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 169–87.Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru and Sato, Shigeru. 2001. Cognitive-functional linguistics in an East Asian context. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Fuhui. 2012. On the grammaticalization of the Kavalan say verb zin. Oceanic Linguistics 51, 2: 464–89.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James and Audrey Li, Y.-H. (eds.). 1996. New horizons in Chinese linguistics. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36.) Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Huang, Shuanfan. 1999. The emergency of a grammatical category ʽdefinite articleʼ in Spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 77–94.Google Scholar
Huang, Yang and Fuxiang, Wu. 2018. Central Southern Guangxi as a grammaticalization area. In Hancil, Breban, and Lozano 2018, pp. 105–34.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 1996. The grammaticalization of aspect markers in Ghanaian Pidgin English. In Baker and Syea 1996, pp. 53–70.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus 1999. Ghanaian Pidgin English in its West African context: A sociohistorical and structural analysis. (Varieties of English around the World 24.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1830. Über die Verwandtschaft der Ortsadverbien mit dem Pronomen in einigen Sprachen. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1985. Die serielle Verbkonstruktion im Ewe: Eine Bestandsaufnahme und Beschreibung der Veränderungstendenzen funktionalspezialisierter Serialisierungen. MA thesis, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard. 1989. Hispanisierung im Baskischen. In Boretzky, Enninger, and Stolz 1989, pp. 11–35.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard (ed.). 2005. Studies on reduplication. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 28.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huttar, George and Koanting, Evert. 1993. Are Ndjuká comparative markers verbs? In Byrne and Holm 1993, pp. 165–74.Google Scholar
Huumo, Tuomas. 1999. Multi-layered grammaticalization: A study of the Finnish partitive. Paper presented at the international conference New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Potsdam, Germany, 17‒19 July 1999.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1975. On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence for Niger-Congo. In Li 1975a, pp. 113–47.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2017. Multiple argument marking in Bantoid: From syntheticity to analyticity. In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. and Magaji, Daniel J.. 1971. Essentials of Gwari grammar. (Occasional Publication 27, Institute of African Studies.) Ibadan: Ibadan University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell (ed.). 1971. Pidginization and creolization of languages: Proceedings of a conference held at the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica, April 1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko, Bender, Jorigine, and Yamamoto, Akira Y.. 1997. Transitivity and auxiliary alternation in Hualapai. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan) 111: 1–17.Google Scholar
Idiatov, Dmitry. 2008. Antigrammaticalization, antimorpologization and the case of Tura. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 151–69.Google Scholar
Iguchi, Yuko. 1998. Functional variety in the Japanese conjunctive particle kara ʽbecauseʼ. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 99–128.Google Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo. 2017. A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language 41, 4: 956–1006.Google Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo and Luraghi, Silvia. Forthcoming. The Hittite periphrastic perfect. In Crellin and Jügel, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2002. Grammaticalization as an analogue of hypothetico-deductive thinking. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 413–22.Google Scholar
Ittmann, Johannes. 1939. Grammatik des Duala (Kamerun). With the collaboration of Carl Meinhof. (Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen, Beihefte 20.) Berlin: Reimer; Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 1999. Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Science 3, 7: 272–9.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacob, Reshma and Mehta, Shreya. 2017. Semantically elaborate categories and grammaticalization in Malayalam. In Ashem, Reena, Kaur, Gureet, and Udaar, Usha (eds.), Exploring the syntax and semantics of South Asian languages, pp. 37–54. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J., von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, Theo (eds.). 1995. Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. In Chafe and Nichols 1986, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume. 2010. The origin of the reflexive prefix in Rgyalrong languages. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 73, 2: 261–8.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume 2014. Denominal affixes as sources of antipassive markers in Japhug Rgyalrong. Lingua 138: 1–22.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume 2015a. The origin of the causative prefix in Rgyalrong languages and its implication for proto-Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Folia Linguistica Historica 36: 165–98.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume 2016a. A new grammaticalisation pathway: From non-finite verb to ergative marker. MS.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume 2016b. From ergative to comparee marker: Multiple reanalyses and polyfunctionality. MS.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume 2017a. Antipassive derivations in Sino-Tibetan/Trans-Himalayan and their sources. MS.Google Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume 2017b. The origin of comitative adverbs in Japhug. In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Philip J. 1997. Reflexives in Hausa. In Ibriszimow, Dymitr, Leger, Rudolf, and Seibert, Uwe (eds.), Von Aegypten zum Tschadsee: Eine linguistische Reise durch Afrika (Festschrift für Herrmann Jungraithmayr zum 65. Geburtstag). Würzburg: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, pp. 213–28.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Philip J. 2001. Hausa. (London Oriental and African Language Library 7.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Philip J. 2010. “Relational DÀ as a preposition, coordinator, and subordinator in Hausa: Polysemy or homophony?” In Ziegelmeyer, Georg and Cyffer, Norbert (eds), Aspects of Co- and Subordination: Case Studies from African, Slavonic and Turkic languages. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Philip J. 2017. The morphological-to-analytic causative continuum in Hausa: New insights and analyses in a typological perspective. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 109.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Jahani, Carina. 2015. Grammaticalization in the verb system of Iranian languages. Paper presented at the symposium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization Scenarios”, Mainz, 12–14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1980. On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of OE nominal case inflections and the ME reanalysis of ES as HIS. In Traugott et al. 1980, pp. 243–52.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1995. From agreement affix to subject “clitic” – a bound root: -mos > -nos vs (-)nos(-) and nos-otros in New Mexican and other regional Spanish dialects. Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on Clitics 31: 118–39.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality”: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23, 2–3: 265–340.Google Scholar
Janic, Katarzyna. 2016. L’antipassif dans les langages accusatifs. Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1984. Articles and plural formation in creoles: Change and universals. Lingua 64: 291–323.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 1999. The grammaticization of topics in American Sign Language. Studies in Language 23, 2: 271–306.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry and Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Meier, Cormier, and Quinto-Pozos 2002, pp. 199–223.Google Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. and Lehiste, Ilse. 1979. Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jeong, Byong-chol. 2006. Semantic network of perception verb pota. Journal of Korean Language and Literature 28: 23–44.Google Scholar
Jensen, Hans. 1934. Der steigernde Vergleich und sein sprachlicher Ausdruck. Indogermanische Forschungen 52: 108–30.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2003, pp. 273–90.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars 2011. Grammaticalization in Turkic languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 752–61.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars 2013. Isomorphic processes: Grammaticalization and copying of grammatical elements. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 101–9.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars and Éva, Á. Csató., F. 2018 Grammaticalisation in Turkic. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 146–65.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars and Utas, Bo (eds.). 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnston, Judith R. 1984. Acquisition of locative meanings: behind and in front of. Journal of Child Language 11: 407–22.Google Scholar
Johnston, Judith R. and Slobin, Dan I.. 1979. The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish. Journal of Child Language 6: 529–45.Google Scholar
Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John, and Garrett, Andrew (eds.). 2012. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Caroline. 1994. Draft sketch grammar of Ngarinyman. MS, Katherine: Diwurruwurru-Jaru.Google Scholar
Jones, Morris and Thomas, Alan R.. 1977. The Welsh language: Studies in the syntax and semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales PressGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?” Language Sciences 23, 2–3: 163–86.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 45–71.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2005. How accommodating of change is grammaticalization? The case of “lateral shifts”. Logos and Language 6, 2: 1–8.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2011. Grammaticalization: A general critique. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 193–205.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2013. Demystifying drift: A variationist account. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In Hammond and Noonan 1988, pp. 193–210.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2017. Meillet and grammaticalisation. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. vii–xvi.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 5: 435–52.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1, 1: 91–110.Google Scholar
Jung, Yonhee. 2001. Grammaticalization of Korean clause connectives. PhD dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72, 3: 533–78.Google Scholar
Justus, Carol F. and Polomé, Edgar C. (eds.). 1999. Language change and typological variation, vol. 2: Grammatical universals and typology. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Kabakčiev, Krasimir (2000). Aspect in English: A “common-sense” view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kahr, Joan Casper. 1975. Adpositions and locationals: Typology and diachronic development. Working Papers on Language Universals (Stanford, CA) 19: 21–54.Google Scholar
Kahr, Joan Casper 1976. The renewal of case morphology: Sources and constraints. Working Papers on Language Universals (Stanford, CA) 20: 107–51.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf. 2001. Lexeme, Kasusmarker, Relatoren? Überlegungen zu den spanischen Präpositionen unter dem Aspekt der Grammatikalisierung. In Schäfer-Prieß et al. 2001, pp. 33–62.Google Scholar
Kailuweit, Rolf, Björn Wiemer, E. Staudinger, and Matasović, Rolf (eds.). 2008. New applications of Role and Reference Grammar: Diachrony, grammaticalization, Romance languages. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kaiser, David W., Cihlar, Jonathan E., Franklin, Amy L., and Kimbara, Irene. 2003. Chicago Linguistic Society 39: The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Stefan, Ichikawa, Yasuko, Kobayashi, Noriko, and Yamamoto, Hilofumi. 2001. Japanese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 4: 848–93.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne (eds.). 2016. Outside the Clause. (Studies in Language Companion Series.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kang, So-Yeong. 2005. The grammaticalization process of nouns and verbs. Journal of Ewha Korean Language and Literature 23: 135–56.Google Scholar
Kari, Ethelbert Emmanuel. 2004. A reference grammar of Degema. (Grammatical Analyses of African Languages 22.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Frances. 1976. Uto-Aztecan and Spanish-type dependent clauses in Nahuatl. (Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax.) Chicago Linguistic Society 1976: 150–8.Google Scholar
Kastenholz, Raimund 1987. Das Koranko: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Nord-Mande-Sprachen. (PhD dissertation, University of Cologne.) Bonn: Mundus.Google Scholar
Kastenholz, Raimund 1989. Grundkurs Bambara (Manding) mit Texten. (Afrikawissenschaftliche Lehrbücher 1.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.). 1994. Studies in Early Modern English. (Topics in English Linguistics 13.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Katz, Aya. 1996. Cyclical grammaticalization and the cognitive link between pronoun and copula. PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Kawachi, Kazuhiro. 2012. Polysemy of the grammatical morpheme kú̘le in Kupsapiny and its grammaticalization from a verb of saying. In Hieda 2012, pp. 111–26.Google Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1991. Substrates, calquing and grammaticalization in Melanesian Pidgin. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 315–42.Google Scholar
Kefer, Michel. 1985. What syntax can be reconstructed from morphology? Lingua 66: 151–75.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne E. 1993. The middle voice. (Typological Studies in Language 23.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kępińska, Alina. 2010. Grammaticalisation of the masculine and non-masculine personal category in the Polish language. In Nomachi 2010, pp. 49–79.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Kodzasov, Sandro V., Muravyova, Irina A., and Kurebito, Megumi. 2004. Language and folklore of the Alutor people. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim.) Suita: Faculty of Informatics, Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Kießling, Roland, Mous, Maarten, and Nurse, Derek. 2008. The Tanzanian Rift Valley Area. In Heine and Nurse 2008, pp. 186–227.Google Scholar
Kihm, Alain. 1995. Tayo, the strange bird from New Caledonia: Determiners and tense-aspect in Tayo and their implications for creolization theories. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 10, 2: 225–52.Google Scholar
Kilarski, Marcin. 2013. Nominal classification: A history of its study from the classical period to the present. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 1992. Der Komitativ im Baka: Eine Fallstudie zur Gramatikalisierung. MA thesis. Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, Christa 1995. Das Baka: Grundzüge einer Grammatik aus der Grammatikalisierungsperspektive. (AMO, Afrikanistische Monographien 6.) Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, Christa and Stolz, Thomas. 1992. Comitative, concomitance, and beyond: On the interdependency of grammaticalization and conceptualization. MS, Institut für Afrikanistik, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Kim, Ahrim. 2015. The pragmatics and evolution of the utterance-final particles -ketun and -canha in modern spoken Korean. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kim, Chin-Wu and Stahlke, H. (eds.). 1971. Papers in African Linguistics. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar
Kim, Eunmi. 2016. Emergence of stance markers from auxiliaries in Korean: Grammaticalization of tay- ‘touch’ and ssah- ‘pile up’. Discourse and Cognition 23, 3: 1–19.Google Scholar
Kim, Hong-Sil. 2015. Hyentay cwungkwuke tóu-uy mwunpephwaey tayhan soko [Thoughts on the grammaticalization of tóu in Modern Chinese]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics in Korea 60: 483–513.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyeree. 2001. Remarks on the unidirectionality principle in grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 22: 49–65.Google Scholar
Kim, Joungmin. 2012. Evidentiality and mirativity on sentence-final predicates in Japanese and Korean: A particular attention to kes-ita and noda. Journal of Humanities (Yeungnam University) 66: 27–48.Google Scholar
Kim, Joungmin and Horie, Kaoru. 2009. Intersubjectification and textual functions of Japanese noda and Korean kes-ita. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16: 279–88.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin. 2015a. A distinct declarative question design in Korean conversation: An examination of turn-final ko questions. Journal of Pragmatics 79: 60–78.Google Scholar
Kim, Mary Shin 2015b. Stancetaking in the face of incongruity in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 83: 57–72.Google Scholar
Kim, Minju. 2008. A corpus-based study of grammaticalization of ‘take’ into instrumental, sequential, and causal markers in Korean. Korean Journal of Linguistics 33.3: 387–420.Google Scholar
Kim, Minju 2010. The historical development of Korean siph- ‘to think’ into markers of desire, inference, and similarity. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1000–16.Google Scholar
Kim, Minju 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean: The evolution of the existential verb. London: Saffron Books.Google Scholar
Kim, Minju 2015. From choice to counter-expectation: Semantic-pragmatic connections of the Korean disjunctive, concessive, and scalar particle -na. Journal of Pragmatics 80, 1–21.Google Scholar
Kim, Stephanie Hyeri and Sohn, Sung-Ock S.. 2015. Grammar as an emergent response to interactional needs: A study of final kuntey ‘but’ in Korean conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 83: 73–90.Google Scholar
Kim, Tae-Yeop. 2001. A study on the grammaticalization of empty morphemes in Korean. Korean Language and Literature 23: 1–24.Google Scholar
Kim, Yoon Jeong. 2008. A study on the grammaticalization of bei. Journal of Linguistic Science 46: 201–19.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln, NE, and London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
King, Alan R. 1994. The Basque language: A practical introduction. Reno: University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar
King, Ross (ed.). 1998. Description and explanation in Korean linguistics. (Cornell University East Asia Series.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University East Asia Program.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Good 2008, pp. 23–53.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 2012. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, Whitman, and Garrett 2012, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Kitamura, Hajime, Nishida, Tatsuo, and Nagano, Yasuhiko (eds.). 1995. Current issues in Sino-Tibetan linguistics. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Kitano, Hiroaki. 1998. What can natural conversational data tell us about grammaticization? A commentary on Suzuki’s paper. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 93–7.Google Scholar
Kitching, Arthur L. 1915. A handbook of the Ateso language. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110: 69–98.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian 2004. Multi-categorial items as underspecified lexical entries: The case of Kambera wàngu. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 299–323.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian 2018. Typology and grammaticalization in the Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 235–62.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen. 2000. Grammaticalization: Studies in Latin and Romance morphosyntax. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science193.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen 2002. Grammaticalization within a theory of morphocentricity. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen 2008. Can grammaticalization be parameterized? In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 171–82.Google Scholar
Klingenheben, August. 1963. Die Sprache der Ful (Dialekt von Adamaua): Grammatik, Texte und Wörterverzeichnis. (Afrikanistische Forschungen 1.) Hamburg: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Klöden, Hildegard. 2001. Grammatikalisierung im Bereich der Präpositionen: Spanisch und Französisch im Vergleich. In Schäfer-Prieß et al. 2001, pp. 63–75.Google Scholar
Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm. [1854] 1968. Outlines of a grammar of the Vei language: Together with a Vei-English vocabulary and an account of the discovery of the Vei mode of syllabic writing. London: Church Missionary House. Reprinted: Farnborou: Gregg International Publishers.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin. 1962. Studien zum Genussystem und Verbalbau der zentralen Khoisan-Sprachen. Anthropos 57: 529–46.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin 1973a. Grundzüge der Grammatik der Khwe-Sprache. MS, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin 1973b. Grundzüge der Grammatik der !Xu˜-Sprache. MS, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Köhler, Oswin 1989. Die Welt der Kxoé-Buschleute. Die Kxoé-Buschleute und ihre ethnische Umgebung, vol. 1. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Kohnen, B. 1933. Shilluk grammar: With a little English–Shilluk dictionary. Verona: Missioni Africane.Google Scholar
Kölver, Ulrike. 1984. Local prepositions and serial verb constructions in Thai. AKUP 56 (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts.) Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
König, Christa. 1993. Aspekt im Maa. (AMO, Afrikanistische Monographien 3.) Cologne: University of Cologne.Google Scholar
König, Christa 2005. Case in Africa: On categorial misbehaviour. In Voeltz 2005, pp. 195–207.Google Scholar
König, Christa 2010. Serial verb constructions in !Xun. In Brenzinger and König 2010, pp. 152–85.Google Scholar
König, Christa 2011. The grammaticalization of adpositions and case marking. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 508–18.Google Scholar
König, Christa and Heine, Bernd. 2001. The !Xun of Ekoka: Ademographic and linguistic report. Khoisan Forum 17 (Cologne). University of Cologne.Google Scholar
König, Christa and Heine, Bernd 2010. Are there ditransitive verbs in !Xun? In Malchukov et al. 2010, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
König, Christa and Heine, Bernd Forthcoming. Discourse markers in !Xun (W2 dialect). Festschrift Rainer Voßen.Google Scholar
König, Christa, Heine, Bernd, and Legère, Karsten. 2015. The Akie language of Tanzania: A sketch of Discourse Grammar. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies).Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1985a. On the history of concessive connectives in English: Diachronic and synchronic evidence. Lingua 66: 1–19.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard 1985b. Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives. In Fisiak 1985, pp. 263–82.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In Traugott et al. 1986, pp. 229–46.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Crosslinguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In Hawkins 1988, pp. 145–66. [*]Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard 2015. Manner deixis as source of grammatical markers in Indo-European languages. In Viti, Carlotta (ed.), Perspectives on historical syntax, pp.33–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Gast, Volker (eds.). 2008. Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations. (Trends in Linguistics 192.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. On the reanalysis of verbs as prepositions. In Rauh 1991, pp. 109–25.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier and Curl 2000a, pp. 41–74.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard and Vezzosi, Letizia. 2008. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 183–206.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung. 1998. Grammaticalization of conditional markers in Modern Korean. Journal of Sangmyung Language and Literature 8: 1–13.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung 2003. On aspects of grammaticalization of ‘giving’ verbs in Korean. Eonehag:Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 37: 3–24.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung 2004. A cognitive analysis of lexicalization patterns of (dis-)honorification in Korean. Korean Semantics 14: 97–120.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung 2008. Grammaticalization of negation markers in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 15, 3: 1–27.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung 2009. Body in the language: A case with Korean body-part term ‘head’. Language and Linguistics 46: 1–27.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung 2012. On grammaticalization of -kinun constructions in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 19, 3: 1–28.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung and Rhee, Seongha. 2001. Grammaticalization of sentential end marker from a conditional marker. Discourse and Cognition 8, 1: 1–19.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung and Rhee, Seongha 2013. On an emerging paradigm of sentence-final particles of discontent: A grammaticalization perspective. Language Sciences 37: 70–89.Google Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung and Rhee, Seongha 2016. Pejoratives in Korean. In Finkbeiner et al. 2016, pp. 301–23.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem, van der Leek, Frederike, Fischer, Olga, and Eaton, Roger (eds.). 1987. Explanation and Linguistic Change. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 45.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1996. Possessive NPs in Maltese: Alienability, iconicity and grammaticalization. In Borg and Plank 1996, pp. 245–74.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Wälchli, Bernhard. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An areal-typological approach. In Dahl and Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2001b, pp. 615–750.Google Scholar
Kordoni, Valia. 2004. Between shifts and alternations: ditransitive constructions. In Müller 2004, pp. 151–67.Google Scholar
Koroma, Regina. 1994. Die Morphosyntax des Gola. (Afrikanistische Monographien, 4.) Cologne: University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Korn, Agnes and Nevskaya, Irina. 2017. Prospective and proximative in Turkic, Iranian and beyond. Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Agnes. 2011. Grammaticalization in non-standard varieties of English. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 263–78.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia and Muysken, Pieter. 1995. Papiamento. In Arends, Muysken, and Smith 1995, pp. 205–18.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kraft, Charles H. and Anthony, H. M. Kirk-Greene. 1973. Hausa. London: Teach Yourself Books.Google Scholar
Kramer, Raija and Kießling, Roland (eds.). 2017. Mechthildian approaches to Afrikanistik: Advances in language based research on Africa, Festschrift für Mechthild Reh. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Krámský, Jiři. 1972. The article and the concept of definiteness in language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. Grammaticalization, subjectification and objectification. In Stathi et al. 2010, pp. 101–21.Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 2014. Semantics of body part terms: General trends and a case study of Swahili. (Lincom Studies on Semantics.) Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Krönlein, Johann G. 1889. Wortschatz der Khoi-Khoin. Berlin: Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2002. A path to volitional modality. In Fanego et al. 2002, pp. 131–55.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2011. Auxiliaries and grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 544–55.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Wilfried. 1990. Untersuchungen zum Problem der seriellen Verben: Vorüberlegungen zu ihrer Grammatik und exemplarische Analyse des Vietnamesischen. (Linguistische Arbeiten 250.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael and Holzweissig, Friedrich. [1912] 1966. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, vol. 1: Elementar-, Formen und Wortlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2006. Case systems in a diachronic perspective: A typological sketch. In Kulikov, Malchukov, and de Swart 2006, pp. 23–47.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid, Malchukov, Andrej, and de Swart, Peter (eds.). 2006. Case, valency and transitivity. (Studies in Language Companion Series 77.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kuperus, Juliana. 1985. The Londo word: Its phonological and morphological structure. Tervuren: Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 13, 51: 55–71.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1972. The role of deictic elements in linguistic evolution. Semiotica 5: 174–83.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1975 [1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques 2: 38–54.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 1998a. On identifying an evasive gram: Action narrowly averted. Studies in Language 22, 1: 113–60.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 1998b. Large linguistic areas in grammaticalization: Auxiliation in Europe. Language Sciences 20, 3: 289–311.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 1999b. Languages and societies: the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model of language development. Language and Communication 19: 213–28.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 1999c. Specification in grammar. In Hiraga, Sinha and Wilcox 1999, pp. 269–284.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 2000. Areal grammaticalization: The case of the Bantu-Nilotic borderland. Folia Linguistica 34, 3–4: 267–83.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 2001a. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 2001b. On the “Diachronic Stability” of grammatical categories. General Linguistics, 38, 1: 109–32.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania 2008. On the frills of grammaticalization. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 189–217.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Aarts, Bas, Popova, Gergana, and Abbi, Anvita. In prep. The grammar of “non-realization”.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Comrie, Bernard 2012. The evolution of language and elaborateness of grammar: The case of relative clauses in Creole languages. In Comrie and Estrada Fernández 2012, pp. 27–46.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Austin, Peter, Rhee, Seongha, Vuillermet, Marine, and Niclot, Domenico. In prep. What is incoordination?Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Heine, Bernd. 2004. On the possessive perfect in North Russian. Word 55, 1: 37–71.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Heine, Bernd 2008. On the explanatory value of grammaticalization. In Good 2008, pp. 215–30.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Heine, Bernd 2012. An integrative model of grammaticalization. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 159–90.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Rhee, Seongha, Ziegeler, Debra, and Sabban, Jessica. 2018. Are you the Queen of England, or what?: On sentence-final ‘what’. Journal of Language Contact 11: 32–70.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Sinha, Chris 1994. Spatial and non-spatial uses of prepositions: conceptual integrity across semantic domains. In Schwarz, Monika (ed.), Kognitive Semantik/Cognitive Semantics. Ergebnisse, Probleme, Perspektiven. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 215–37.Google Scholar
Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. (Nilo-Saharan 9.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Kwon, Iksoo. 2012. Please confirm what I inferred: On the Korean inferential-evidential marker -napo-. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 958–69.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1987. On the use of the modal auxiliaries indicating ‘possibility’ in early American English. In Harris and Ramat 1987, pp. 145–70.Google Scholar
Lafkioui, Mena (ed.). 2013. African Arabic: Approaches to dialectology. (Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 258.) Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2002. From logophoric pronoun to discourse particle: A case study from Finnish and Saami. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 327–44.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea 2004. Grammaticalization and standardization. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 247–62.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakshmi Bai, B. 1991. Convergence: A perspective from question words. Language Sciences 13, 2: 197–205Google Scholar
Laman, Karl E. 1912. Grammar of the Kongo language (Kikongo). New York: Christian Alliance.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice and Walter, de Mulder. 2011. Grammaticalization across languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 302–17.Google Scholar
Lane, George S. 1935. Notes on Lousiana French. II: The Negro-French dialect. Language 11: 5–16.Google Scholar
Lang, Jürgen and Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid (eds.). 1999. Reanalyse und Grammatikalisierung in den romanischen Sprachen. (Linguistische Arbeiten 410.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (ed.). 1984. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 4: Southern Uto-Aztecan grammatical sketches. (Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in Linguistics 56, IV.) Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 79–91.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1994. Parallel grammaticalizations in Tibeto-Birman languages: Evidence of Sapir’s ‘drift’. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 17, 1: 61‒80.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. On the change to verb-medial word order in Proto-Chinese: Evidence from Tibeto-Burman. In Kitamura et al. 1995, pp. 98–104.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. and Huang, Chenglong. 2003. A grammar of Qiang: With annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Launey, Michel. 1979. Introduction à la langue et à la littérature aztèques, vol. 1: Grammaire. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 1997. Demonstratives in interaction: The emergence of a definite article in Finnish. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3, 1: 91–110.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 3: 359–67.Google Scholar
Łęcki, Andrzej M. and Nykiel, Jerzy. 2017. Grammaticalization of the English adverbial subordinator in order that. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 237–56.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam. 2011. Grammaticalization from Latin to Romance. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 717–26.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian (eds.). 2017. The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang. 1991. Tense, aspect, and modality: A discourse-pragmatic analysis of verbal affixes in Korean from a Typological Perspective. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyo Sang 1993. Cognitive constraints on expressing newly perceived information: With reference to epistemic modal suffixes in Korean. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 2: 135–67.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyeon Hie. 1982. Kwuke congkyelemiuy paltaley tayhan kwankyen [Thoughts on the development of sentence-final particles in Korean] Journal of Korean Linguistics 11: 143–63.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyun Sook. 2013. Displacement verbs and speaker-stance indication. Studies in Modern Grammar 71: 75–94.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyun Sook 2014. How does co-existence in the mental and physical domain go for concessives? Journal of Linguistic Science 71: 217–236.Google Scholar
Lee, Kee-Dong. 1975. Kusaiean reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Keum-Hee. 2005. The study of the grammaticalized endings on quotation constructions: on the grammaticalization process and degree. Journal of Korean Linguistics 48: 233–58.Google Scholar
Lee, Ki-Gap. 1995. A discourse marker ice in Korean. Discourse and Cognition 1: 261–87.Google Scholar
Lee, Sung-Nyong. 1958. Growth of nominative ga and its interpretation. Journal of Korean Language and Literature 19: 53–57.Google Scholar
Lee, Tae Yeong. 1993. A study on the grammaticalization of Korean verbs. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire and Brousseau, Anne-Marie. 2002. A grammar of Fongbe. (Mouton Grammar Library 25.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leger, Rudolf. 1991. Sprachproben aus dem Westtschadischen: Kupto und Kwamitexte. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere (AAP, Cologne) 28: 5–32.Google Scholar
Leger, Rudolf 1992. Eine Grammatik der Kwami-Sprache (Nordostnigeria). (Westafrikanische Studien 8.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Legère, Karsten and Thornell, Christina (eds.). 2010. Bantu languages: Analyses, description and theory. (East African Languages and Dialects 20.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1969. ‘Being’ and ‘having’ in Estonian. Foundations of Language 5: 324–41.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, vol. 1. (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts, AKUP 48). Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 3: 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1986. Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. General Linguistics 26, 1: 3–23.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1989. Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 1: 11–19.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1991. Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 493–534.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1993. Theoretical implications of grammaticalization phenomena. In Foley 1993, pp. 315–40.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1995a. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd, rev. edn. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32: 152–87.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 2008. Information structure and grammaticalization. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 207–29.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 2015. Grammaticalization in Yucatec Maya. Paper presented at the symposium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization Scenarios”, Mainz, 12–14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 2017. Grammaticalization of tense/aspect/mood marking in Yucatec Maya. In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 173–237.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian, de Lima, José Pinto, and Soares, Rute. 2010. Periphrastic voice with ʽseeʼ in Portuguese. In Diewald and Smirnova 2010, pp. 75–100.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Thomas. 1989. A grammar of Modern Tamil. Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. (ed.). 1978. Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred and Helen-Jo, Jakusz Hewitt (eds.). 1991. Language typology 1988: Typological models in the service of reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfried P. and Malkiel, Yakov. (eds.). 1968. Directions for historical linguistics. (A Symposium.) Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfried P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.). 1982. Perspectives in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2005. Derivation als Grammatikalisierungsbrücke für den Aufbau von Genusdifferenzierungen im Deutschen. In Leuschner, Mortelmans and De Groodt 2005, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Lekens, Benjamin. 1958. Ngbandi idioticon, vol. 2: Ngbandi en Frans-Nederlands. (Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge, Série in-8, Science de l’Homme, Linguistique 3, II.) Tervuren: Commission de Linguistique Africaine.Google Scholar
Lemaréchal, Alain (ed.). 1997. Grammaticalisation et reconstruction. (Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, Nouvelle Série, 5.) Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2002. Is it, stylewise or otherwise, wise to use -wise? Domain adverbials and the history of English -wise. In Fanego et al. 2002, pp. 157–80.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula and Meurman-Solin, Anneli (eds.). 2007 Connectives in the history of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra. 2008. Zur Grammatikalisierung von geben im Deutschen und Lëtzebuergeschen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 35,1–2: 52–82.Google Scholar
León, Lourdes de. 1992. Body parts and location in Tzotzil: A case of grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 45, 6: 570–89.Google Scholar
Lesley-Neuman, Diane 2012. Morpho-phonological levels and grammaticalization in Karimojong: A review of the evidence. Studies in Language 41, 1: 99–169.Google Scholar
Lessau, Donald Andreas. 1994. A dictionary of grammaticalization, 3 vols. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 21.) Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Leuschner, Torsten. 1998. At the boundaries of grammaticalization: What interrogatives are doing in concessive conditionals. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 159–87.Google Scholar
Leuschner, Torsten 2008. From speech-situation evocation to hypotaxis: The case of Latin quamvis ‘although’. In Seoane and López-Couso 2008, pp. 231–52.Google Scholar
Leuschner, Torsten, Mortelmans, Tanja, and De Groodt, Sarah (eds.). 2005. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. (Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 9.) Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49, 2: 415–43.Google Scholar
Leyew, Zelealem. 2003. The Kemantney language: A sociolinguistic and grammatical study of language replacement. (Cushitic Language Studies 20.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Leyew, Zelealem and Heine, Bernd. 2003. Comparative constructions in Africa: An areal dimension. APAL (Annual Publication in African Linguistics, Cologne) 1: 47–68.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1975a. Word order and word order change. Austin and London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. 1975b. Synchrony vs diachrony in language structure. Language 51, 4: 873–86.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1974a. An explanation of word order change SVO > SOV. Foundations of Language 12: 201–14.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1974b. Co-Verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2, 3: 257–78.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1977. A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes. In Li 1977, pp. 419–44.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Synchrony and diachrony: The Mandarin comparative. Folia Linguistica Historica 1–2: 231–50.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. Mandarin. In Chisholm, Milic, and Greppin 1984, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991a. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67, 3: 475–509.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek 1991b. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 37–80.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Bybee and Fleischman 1995, pp. 293–328.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek 2002. The possessive-benefactive connection, Oceanic Linguistics 41, 2: 439–74.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek 2009. Start and finish: Some grammatical changes in Toqabaqita. In Adelaar and Pawley 2009, pp. 227–46.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek 2013. Development of reason and cause markers in Oceanic, Oceanic Linguistics 52, 1: 86–105.Google Scholar
Lien, Chinfa. 2015. Formation of the experiential aspect marker Pat4: Contact-induced grammatical change in Southern Min. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2, 2: 273–99.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Douglas. 2005. Gestalt derivation in German. In Leuschner, Mortelmans, and De Groodt 2005, pp.59–70.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Douglas 2011. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 438–49.Google Scholar
Liljegren, Henrik. 2016. A grammar of Palula. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 8.) Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lindenfeld, Jacqueline. 1973. Yaqui syntax. Berkeley and Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.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.Google Scholar
Lindström Tiedemann, Therese. 2006. Grammaticalization – past and present. Logos and Language 6, 2: 19–35.Google Scholar
Liu, Meichun. 2010. Emergence of the indefinite article: Discourse evidence for the grammaticalization of yige in spoken Mandarin. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 275–88.Google Scholar
Löbel, Elizabeth. 1996. Klassifikatoren: Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel des Vietnamesischen. MS, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William B. 1955. An introduction to modern Faroese. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Long, Haiping, Gu, Feng, and Xiao, Xiaoping (trans.), Hong, Bo and Gu, Feng (annotating). 2012. Translations of World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Beijing: Beijing World Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Long, Haiping, Heine, Bernd, Ruan, Guijun, and Wu, Mengyue. 2018. The grammaticalizational relation between two Modern Chinese wo xiang ‘I think’ constructions. Language Sciences 66: 212–25.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 2: 275–302.Google Scholar
Loon, Esther van, Pfau, Roland, and Steinbach, Markus. 2014. The grammaticalization of gestures in sign languages. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., and Tessendorf, S. (eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 2133–49.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2007. Adverbial connectives within and beyond adverbial subordination: The history of lest. In Lenker and Meurman-Solin 2007, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2017. Epistemic/evidential markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 93–120.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Seoane, Elena (eds.). 2008. Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives. (Typological Studies in Language 76.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1973. Serial verbs in transition. Studies in African Linguistics 4, 3: 269–96.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1974. Causative constructions in Yoruba. Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 5: 195–204.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1975. Igbo verb compounds and the lexicon. Studies in African Linguistics (Los Angeles) 6, 1: 23–48.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa. In Steever, Walker, and Mufwene 1976, pp. 179–91.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1977. How Igbo got from SOV serializing to SVO compounding. Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 7: 145–55.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1982. The development of object markers in serial verb languages. In Hopper and Thompson 1982, pp. 277–99.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1989. Syntactic reanalysis in the historical development of serial verb constructions in languages of West Africa. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. (Typological Studies in Language 26.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol D., Yap, Foong Ha, and Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian perspectives. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 217–35.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 143–61.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang and Schulze, Rainer (eds.). 1987. Perspectives on language in performance: Studies in linguistics, literary criticism, and language teaching and learning. (To honour Werner Hüllen on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday.) Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1953. Oneida verb morphology. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lukas, Johannes. 1970. Studien zur Sprache der Gisiga (Nord-Kamerun). (Afrikanistische Forschungen 4.) Glückstadt: Augustin.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 1998. The grammaticalization of the left boundary in Hittite. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 189–210.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2001a. Syncretism and the classification of semantic roles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54, 1: 35–51.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2001b. Some remarks on instrument, comitative, and agent in Indo-European. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54, 4: 385–401.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2003. On the meaning of prepositions and cases: A study of the expression of semantic roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2005a. Does a theory of language change need unidirectionality? Logos and Language 6, 2: 9–17.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2005b. Paths of semantic extension: From cause to beneficiary and purpose. In Fortescue et al. 2005, pp. 141–57.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2014. Plotting diachronic semantic maps: The role of metaphors. In Luraghi and Narrog 2014, pp. 99–150.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2016. The mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction and some unpredicted trends in semantic change. Linguistics 54, 2: 339–79.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia 2017. From verb to New Event Marker: Another look at the Hittite pai- and uwa- constructions. MS, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia, De Smit, Merlijn, and Igartua, Ivan. Forthcoming. Contact-induced change in the languages of Europe: the rise and development of partitive cases and determiners. Linguistics.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia and Huumo, Tuomas (eds.). 2014. Partitive cases and related categories. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia and Seppo, Kittilä. 2014. The typology and diachrony of partitives. In Luraghi and Huumo 2014, pp. 17–62.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia and Narrog, Heiko (eds). 2014. Perspectives on semantic roles. (Typological Studies in Language 106.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lynch, John, Ross, Malcolm, and Crowley, Terry, 2002. The Oceanic languages. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1967. A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences. Foundations of Language 3: 390–6.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica. 1996. A grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ma Newman, Roxana. 1990. An English-Hausa dictionary. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Maaß, Christiane and Schrott, Angela (eds.). 2009. Wenn Deiktika nicht zeigen: Deiktische Formen als Satzkonnektoren und Marker. Deixis, Pragmatik und Grammatikalisierung. Münster: LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Portner, Paul (eds.). 2012. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: Statistics, frequency, and beyond. In Lindquist and Mair 2004, pp. 121–50.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian 2011. Grammaticalization and corpus linguistics. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 239–50.Google Scholar
Maisak, Timur. 2015. Grammaticalization in Lezgic languages, with special reference to Agul. Paper presented at the symposium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization Scenarios”, Mainz, 12–14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Makino, Seiichi and Tsutsui, Michio. 1986. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.Google Scholar
Malandra, Alfred. 1955. A new Acholi grammar. Nairobi, Kampala, and Dar es Salaam: Eagle Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2004. Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics 21, 2: 177–98.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej 2013. Verbalization and insubordination in Siberian languages. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 177–208.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2010. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham and Blake, Barry J.. 1981. Language typology: Crosslinguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam, New York, and Oxford: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Manessy, Gabriel (ed.). 1981. Les langues de l’Afrique subsaharienne. (Les Langues dans le Monde Ancien et Moderne, Première Partie.) Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Mann, Charles C. 1993. Polysemic functionality of prepositions in pidgins and creoles: The case of ‘fò’ in Anglo-Nigerian Pidgin. In Byrne and Holm 1993, pp. 57–67.Google Scholar
Manomaivibool, Prapin. 1976. Layers of Chinese loanwords in Thai. In Gething et al. 1976, pp. 179–84.Google Scholar
Marchese, Lynell. 1978. Le développement des auxiliaires dans les langues kru. Annales de l’Université d’Abidjan, series H, 11, 1: 121–31.Google Scholar
Marchese, Lynell 1984. Tense innovation in the Kru language family. Studies in African Linguistics 15, 2: 189–213.Google Scholar
Marchese, Lynell 1986. Tense/aspect and the development of auxiliaries in Kru languages. (Summer Institute of Linguistics, Publications in Linguistics 78.) Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas, Arlington.Google Scholar
Marconnes, Francisque A. 1931. A grammar of Central Karanga. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Press.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna. 1999. Valence and transitivity in Saliba, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. (MPI Series in Psycholinguistics.) Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna. 2004. From implicature to construction: Emergence of a benefactive construction in Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics 43, 2: 445–68.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna and Austin, Peter K.. 2007. Three participant events in the language of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45, 3: 393–451.Google Scholar
Maring, Joel Marvyl. 1967. Grammar of Acoma Keresan. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Markopoulos, Theodore. 2017. Contact-induced grammaticalization in older texts: The Medieval Greek analytic comparatives. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 211–29.Google Scholar
Martelotta, Mario Eduardo T. and Cezario, Maria Maura. 2011. Grammaticalization in Brazilian Portuguese. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 727–37.Google Scholar
Marten, Lutz. 1998. Swahili -kwisha: Sketching the path of grammaticalization. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 8: 141–63.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–66.Google Scholar
Matasović, Rolf. 2008. Patterns of grammaticalization and the layered structure of the clause. In Kailuweit et al. 2008, pp.45–57.Google Scholar
Mateene, Kahombo. 1992. Essai de grammaire du kihunde: Syntaxe, morphologie et phonologie mélangées. Münster, Hamburg: LIT.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1969. Verb concatenation in Lahu. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia (Copenhagen) 12, 1: 69–120.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1973. The grammar of Lahu. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 75.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 383–453.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1992. The mother of all morphemes: Augmentatives and diminutives in areal and universal perspective. http://stedt.berkeley.edu/pdf/JAM/matisoff1992mother.pdfGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron 1996. Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romanes. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49, 1: 60–78.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron 2011. Grammaticalization and language contact. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 279–90.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron and Bakker, Peter (eds.). 2003. The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 145.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1988. From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 340–51.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo 1998. Semantic change in the grammaticalization of verbs into postpositions in Japanese. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 25–60.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen and Yip, Virginia. 2009. Contact-induced grammaticalization: Evidence from bilingual acquisition. Studies in Language 33, 2: 366–95.Google Scholar
Matthews, Stephen and Yip, Virginia 2011. Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maurer, Philippe and Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 1987. Varia Creolica. (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 3.) Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina and Ramat, Anna Giacalone. 2009. The grammaticalization of interclausal connectives: The case of adversatives. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen 12–13 August 2009.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina and Sansò, Andrea. 2011. How directive constructions emerge: Grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 489–521.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina and Sansò, Andrea 2012. The reality status of directives and its coding across languages. Language Sciences 34: 147–70.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina and Sansò, Andrea 2014a. Go and come as sources of directive constructions. In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 165–84.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina and Sansò, Andrea 2014b. Pathways to conditionality. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 99, 1: 97–121.Google Scholar
Mazzoli, Maria. 2017. Complexity in gradience: The serial verb take in Nigerian Pidgin. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 231–60.Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick and Simpson, Jane. 2009. Moving along the grammaticalization path: Locative and allative marking of non-finite clauses and secondary predications in Australian languages. MS, Sydney University; http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/4989Google Scholar
McConvell, Patrick and Simpson, Jane 2012. Fictive motion Down Under: The locative-allative case alternation in some Australian indigenous languages. In Santos, Lindén, and Ng’ang’a 2012, pp. 159–180.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. and Wurm, Stephen A.. 1979. Basic materials in Waŋkumara (Gala)li): Grammar, sentences and vocabulary. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 65.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. In prep. Grammaticalisation patterns in Nyulnyulan languages. In Bisang and Malchukov, in prep.Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity and O’Shannessy, Carmel (eds.). 2016. Loss and renewal: Australian languages since contact. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy A., and Quinto-Pozos, David G. (eds.). 2002. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meinhof, Carl. 1930. Der Koranadialekt des Hottentottischen. (Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen, Beiheft 12.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Mélac, Éric. 2014. L’évidentialité en anglais: approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. PhD dissertation, University of Paris 3.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2007. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 141–95.Google Scholar
Merlan, Aurelia. 2006. Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im Portugiesischen und Rumänischen: von Nominalsyntagmen zu Pronomina. In Schmidt-Radefeldt 2006, pp. 221–40.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca C. 1982. Mangarayi. (Lingua Descriptive Series 4.) Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca C. 1994. A grammar of Wardaman: A language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle. 2011. Some grammatical innovations in the development of Estonian and Finnish: Forced grammaticalization. Linguistica Uralica 47, 4: 241–56.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle 2017. Can a language be forced? The case of Estonian. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 281–309.Google Scholar
Metslang, Helle, Habicht, Külli, and Pajusalu, Karl. 2017. Where do polar questions come from? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 70, 3: 489–521.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria. 1998. Antikausativ als Brücke zum Passiv: fieri, venire und se im Vulgärlateinischen und Altitalienischen. In Dahmen et al. 1998, pp. 69–98.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria and Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Grammaticalization in creole languages: Accelerated functionalization and semantic imitation. Paper presented at the symposium on “Areal Patterns of Grammaticalization and Crosslinguistic Variation in Grammaticalization Scenarios”, Mainz, 12–14 March 2015.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne and Rosalie, Marcel. 2000. Polysémie et cartes sémantiques: Le relateur (av)ek en créole seychellois. Études Créoles 23, 2: 79–100.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.). 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. (Studies in Language Companion Series 94.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mietzner, Angelika and Claudi, Ulrike (eds.). 2012. Directionality in grammar and discourse: Case studies from Africa. (Topics in Interdisciplinary African Studies 29.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl. 2000. Some suggestions for explaining the origin and development of the definite article in English. In Fischer et al. 2000, pp. 275–310.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2004. Perfect and resultative constructions in spoken and non-standard English. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 229–46.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 2003. On the role of the speaker in language change. In Hickey 2003, pp. 143–57.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Milroy, James. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–84.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka and Stockwell, Robert (eds.). 2002. Studies in the history of the English language. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miola, Emanuele 2017. The position of Piedmontese on the Romance grammaticalization cline. Folia Linguistica 51, 1: 133–68.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. In Craig 1986b, pp. 379–98.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 1988. The grammaticization of coordination. In Haiman and Thompson 1988, pp. 331–59.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 1991. The development of bound pronominal paradigms. In Lehmann and Jakusz Hewitt. 1991, pp. 85–104.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 1992. External triggers and internal guidance in syntactic development: Coordinating conjunctions. In Gerritsen and Stein 1992, pp. 89–129.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2002. An invisible hand at the root of causation: The role of lexicalization in the grammaticalization of causatives. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 237–57.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2011. Grammaticalization and explanation. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 177–9.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2016. How fascinating! Insubordinate exclamations. Insubordination. In Evans and Watanabe 2016, pp. 369–93.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne 2018. Shaping typology through grammaticalization: North America. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 309–36.Google Scholar
Mixco, Maurico. 1997. Mandan. (Languages of the World Materials 159.) Munich and New Castle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Mkhatshwa, Simon Nyana Leon. 1991. Metaphorical extensions as a basis for grammaticalization: With special reference to Zulu auxiliary verbs. MA thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.Google Scholar
Mocciaro, Egle. 2014. Passive in motion: The Early Italian auxiliary andare (ʽto goʼ). In Devos and van der Wal 2014, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
Möhlig, Wilhelm, Brauner, Siegmund, and Jungraithmayr, Hermann (eds.). 1993. IX. Afrikanistentag. Beiträge zur afrikanischen Sprach und Literaturwissenschaft. Leipzig, 24–26 September 1992. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie. 2017. Grammaticalization of particles and gerunds in Indo-Aryan: Preterite, future, infinitive. In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp.95–134.Google Scholar
Mok, Jung-soo. 2001. The function of jom and its grammaticalization. Eonehag: Journal of the Linguistic Society of Korea 28: 77–100.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1972. Some crosslinguistic generalizations about intensifier constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 271–7.Google Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, Juan C. 1998. On the relationships between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 211–27.Google Scholar
Mori, Junko. 1996. Historical change of the Japanese connective datte: Its form and functions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5: 201–18.Google Scholar
Morris-Jones, J. 1913. A Welsh grammar, historical and comparative. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Moriya, Tetsuharu and Horie, Kaoru. 2017. The Neg-Raising Phenomenon as a product of grammaticalization. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 121–34.Google Scholar
Moser, Rosemarie. 2005. Grammaticalization chains of the verb Kàre ʽto giveʼ in Kabba. In Voeltz 2005, pp. 277–301.Google Scholar
Moulin, Claudin and Nübling, Damaris (eds.). 2006. Perspektiven einer linguistischen Luxemburgistik: Studien zur Diachronie und Synchronie. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire. 2008. Constructions expressing middle, reflexive and reciprocal situations in some Oceanic languages. In König and Gast 2008, pp. 105–68.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire 2010. (Dé)Grammaticalisation d’expressions spatiales dans des langues océaniennes. In Choi-Jonin, Duval, and Soutet 2010, pp. 295–314.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire 2012. The concept ‘return’ as a source of different developments in Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 51, 1: 234–60.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire 2018. Grammaticalization in Oceanic languages. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 282–308.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, Claire and Sabel, Joachim. 2011. Topics in Oceanic morphosyntax. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 239.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 1996. Creolization and grammaticization: What creolistics could contribute to research on grammaticization. In Baker and Syea 1996, pp. 5–28.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. and Bokamba, Eyamba G.. 1979. Are there modal-auxiliaries in Lingala? In Clyne, Hanks, and Hofbauer 1979, pp. 244–55.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. (Language in Society 15.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan (ed.). 2004. The proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Center for Computational Linguistics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 3–6 August 2004. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2018. Grammaticalization and typology in Australian Aboriginal languages: Evidence from second position clitic constructions. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 263–81.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter and Smith, Norval (eds.). 1986. Substrata versus universals in Creole genesis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter and Veenstra, Tonjes. 1995. Serial verbs. In Arends, Muysken, and Smith 1995, pp. 289–301.Google Scholar
Mwinlaaru, Isaac Nuokyaa-Ire 2017. A systemic functional description of the grammar of Dagaare. PhD dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Hirosi. 2016. The aspect system in G/ui: With special reference to postural features. In Takada 2016, pp. 119–34.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide and Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko. 1997. Japanese kedo: Discourse genre and grammaticization. In Sohn and Haig 1997, pp. 607–18.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2002. Polysemy and indeterminacy in modal markers – the case of Japanese beshi. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 123–67.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2005. Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings – a new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 4: 677–731.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2008. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions, www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/07-SemanticMaps/pdf/narrog.pdfGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2009a. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2009b. Varieties of instrumental. In Malchukov and Spencer 2009, pp. 593–601.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2010a. Voice and non-canonical case marking in the expression of event-oriented modality. Linguistic Typology 14: 71–126.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2010b. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery 8, 1: 233–57.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2012a. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A crosslinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2012b. Beyond intersubjectification: Textual uses of modality and mood in subordinate clauses as part of speech-act orientation. English Text Construction 5, 1: 29–51.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2014. The grammaticalization chain of case functions: Extension and reanalysis of case marking vs universals of grammaticalization. In Luraghi and Narrog 2014, pp. 69–97.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2015. (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences 47, 148–60.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2016a. Insubordination in Japanese diachronically. In Evans and Watanabe 2016, pp. 247–81.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2016b. Exaptation in Japanese and beyond. In Muriel Norde and Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Exaptation and language change, 93–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2017a. Typology and grammaticalization. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2017, pp. 151–77.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2017b. Relationship of form and function in grammaticalization – the case of modality. In Hengeveld et al. 2017, pp. 75–110.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2017c. Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd 2017. Grammaticalization. In Ledgeway and Roberts 2017, pp. 7–27.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization from a typological perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Ito, Shinya. 2007. Reconstructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60, 4: 273–92.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Ohori, Toshio. 2011. Grammaticalization in Japanese. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 775–85.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Rhee, Seongha. 2013. Grammaticalization of space in Korean and Japanese. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 287–315.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and van der Auwera, Johan. 2011. Grammaticalization and semantic maps. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 318–27.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole. 1995. Möglichkeiten und Mechanismen kontaktbewegten Sprachwandels unter besonderer Berücksichtung des Finnischen. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Nau, Nicole 2012. Modality in an areal context: The case of a Latgalian dialect. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 465–508.Google Scholar
Naumann, Hans-Peter et al. (eds.). 1986. Festschrift für Oskar Bandle. Zum 60. Geburtstag am 11. January 1986. (Beiträge zur Nordischen Philologie 15.) Basel and Frankfurt: Helbing and Lichtenhain.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor V. 1993. Causative-passive polysemy of the Manchu-Tungusic -bu/-v(u). Linguistica Antverpiensa 27: 193–202.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Rissanen, Kytö, and Heikkonen 1997, pp.145–90.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2004. Three perspectives on grammaticalization: Lexico-grammar, corpora and historical sociolinguistics. In Lindqvist and Mair 2004, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Palander-Collin, Minna. 2011. Grammaticalization and sociolinguistics. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 118–29.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London, etc.: Longman Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina. 2005. The typology of the prospective in Turkic languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 58, 1: 111–23.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, John (ed.). 1997. The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa language: An encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul and Botne, Robert D. (eds.). 1989. Current approaches to African linguistics, vol. 5. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul and Schuh, Russel G.. 1974. The Hausa aspect system. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1, 1: 1–39.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2000. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23, 2: 187–229.Google Scholar
Ng, Eve. 2004. What constitutes a case of grammaticalization? Evidence from the development of copulas from demonstratives in Passamaquoddy. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 281–98.Google Scholar
Ngai, Sing Sing. 2015. On the origin of special numerals for ʽoneʼ in southeastern China: [kɛi213] in the northwestern Min dialect of Shaowu. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 190–225.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Tam. 2013. Verb serialization in Ede from a diachronic perspective. In Thornes et al. 2013, pp. 179–94.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna and Timberlake, Alan. 1991. Grammaticalization as retextualization. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 129–46.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.). 2007. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2007. The grammaticalization of tense markers: A pragmatic reanalysis. Cahiers Chronos 17: 47–65.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve 2011. Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 401–12.Google Scholar
Nishimura, Yoshiki. 1998. Some theoretical issues in the analysis of polyfunctionality: A commentary on Ohori’s paper. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 163–67.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14, 2: 177–202.Google Scholar
Nomachi, Motoki (ed.). 2010. Grammaticalization in Slavic languages: From areal and typological perspectives. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2008. Nominalizations in Bodic languages. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 219–37.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael and Mihas, Elena. 2007. Areal dimensions in case syncretism: Ablatives and genitives in the Himalayas. www4.uwm.edu/letsci/noonan/Abl-Gen.Gothenburg.pdfGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 1997. The history of the genitive in Swedish: A case study in degrammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel 2001. Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. Language Sciences 23, 2–3: 231–64.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel 2002. The final stages of grammaticalization: Affixhood and beyond. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel and van de Velde, Freek (eds.). 2016. Exaptation and language change. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 336.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel 1998. Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens. 2008. Grammaticalization waves. The Russian subjunctive mood and person/number marking. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 253–68.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens 2011. Patterns of connecting grammaticalisation in Russian. In Nørgård-Sørensen et al. 2011, pp. 115–70.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens and Heltoft, Lars. 2017. Grammaticalisation and paradigmatisation. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 261–92.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Heltoft, Lars, and Schøsler, Lene (eds.). 2011. Connecting grammaticalisation. (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 65.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2003. Auf Umwegen zum Passivauxiliar: Die Grammatikalisierung von geben, werden, kommen und bleiben im Luxemburgischen, Deutschen und Schwedischen. MS, University of Mainz.Google Scholar
Nugteren, Hans. 2013. Postposed indefinite articles in Mongolic and Turkic languages of the Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 227–50.Google Scholar
Nzoimbengene, Phillipe. 2016. Les ʽdiscourse markersʼ en Lingala: étude sémantique et pragmatique sur base d’un corpus de lingála de Kishasa oral. PhD dissertation, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The evolution of /claro/ from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Sagarra and Toribio 2006, pp. 308–19.Google Scholar
Oh, Sang-suk. 1998. A syntactic and semantic study of Korean auxiliaries: A grammaticalization perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio (ed.). 1998a. Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. (Linguistic Workshop Series 6.) Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio 1998b. Polysemy and paradigmatic change in the Japanese conditional marker ba. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 135–62.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio 1998c. Close to the edge: A commentary on Horie’s paper. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 193–7.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio 2001. Clause integration as grammaticalization: A case from Japanese tokoro-complements. In Horie and Sato 2001, pp. 279–301.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio 2011. The grammaticalization of subordination. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 633–42.Google Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2013. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique des auxiliaires et des connecteurs du tibétain littéraire: étude diachronique et synchronique. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 3.Google Scholar
Olsson, Bruno. 2013. Iamitives: Perfects in Southeast Asia and beyond. Masters thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-91392 (13 February 2015).Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella. 2012. The place of exclamatives and miratives in grammar: A Functional Discourse Grammar view. Revista Linguistica 8, 1: 76–98.Google Scholar
O’Neil, Joseph A. 1935. A Shona grammar – Zezeru dialect. London, New York, and Toronto: Longmans.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi. 1992. The grammaticalization of the Japanese verbs oku and shimau. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 4: 367–90.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi and Suzuki, Ryoko. 1992. The development of a marker of speaker’s attitude: The pragmatic use of the Japanese grammaticalized verb shimau in conversation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18: 204–13.Google Scholar
Ono, Yoshiko. 2004. Possession, Partizipation, Identifikation am Beispiel des Japanischen im typologischen Vergleich. In Premper 2004, pp. 111–36.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 611–21.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O. 2017. Uniqueness of Japanese Right Periphery (RP): Required Concluding Form and Pragmatic Elaboration. Presented paper at IPrA 2017 (18 July 2017, Belfast, UK).Google Scholar
Orešnik, Janez. 2007. Natural syntax: the grammatical person of personal pronouns. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 4: 293–313.Google Scholar
Orr, Robert. 1992. Slavo-Celtica. Canadian contributions to the 11th International Congress of Slavists, Bratislava 1993. Canadian Slavonic Papers 34, 3: 245–68.Google Scholar
Oštir, Alja Lipavic. 2010. Grammaticalization and language contact between German and Slovene. In Nomachi 2010, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise. 1998. Le nyelâyu de Balade (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: Peeters-Selaf, Langues et cultures du Pacifique 12.Google Scholar
O’Grady, William. 2005. Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William (ed.). 1994. Perspectives on grammaticalization. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 109.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2013. Incipient grammaticalization of a redundant purpose clause marker in Lamunxin Éven: Contact-induced change or independent innovation? In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 259–83.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte and Schalley, Ewa. 2007. From possibility to prohibition: A rare grammaticalization pathway. Linguistic Typology 11: 515–40.Google Scholar
Papen, Robert Antoine. 1978. The French-based creoles of the Indian Ocean: An analysis and comparison. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Paprotté, Wolf and Dirven, René (eds.). 1985. The ubiquity of metaphor. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Park, Insun. 1992. Constituency problems in the auxiliary verb construction in Burmese. Paper presented at the Twenty-fifth Annual International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Park, Insun 1994. Grammaticalization of verbs in three Tibeto-Burman languages. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Park, Jin-Ho. 2011. Tense, aspect, and modality. Journal of Korean Linguistics 60: 289–322.Google Scholar
Park, Jin-Ho 2015. A historical study of delimiters. Journal of Korean Linguistics 73: 375–435.Google Scholar
Park, Keun-Young. 2001. Grammaticalization of Korean substitutes. PhD dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea.Google Scholar
Park, Mee-Jeong and Sohn, Sung-Ock S.. 2002. Discourse, grammaticalization, and intonation: The analysis of -ketun in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 306–19.Google Scholar
Pasch, Helma. 2017. “Head” in some non-Bantu languages of the Oriental Province of DR Congo. MS, Cologne.Google Scholar
Patard, Adeline and der Auwera, Johan van. 2017. The French comparative modal constructions faire mieux de, valoir mieux and falloir mieux. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 81–111.Google Scholar
Paton, W. F. 1971. Ambrym (Lonwolwol) grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 19.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2010. Cleft sentences, construction grammar and grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud. 1982. Die Koverben im Chinesischen. (Arbeitspapier 40.) Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. (ed.). 2010. Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. and Payne, Thomas E.. 1990. Yagua. In Derbyshire and Pullum 1990, pp. 249–473.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. and Payne, Doris L.. 2013. A typological grammar of Panare: A Cariban language of Venezuela. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Pelling, Rev. J. N. 1971. A practical Ndebele dictionary. Harare: Longman Zimbabwe Limited.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Robert J. 2003. A grammar of Jingulu, an aboriginal language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pérez, Aveline. 1990. Time in motion: Grammaticalisation of the be going to construction in English. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 49–64.Google Scholar
Perry, John R. 2000. Epistemic verb forms in Persian of Iran, Afganistan and Tajikistan. In Johanson and Utas, pp. 229–57.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain. 1988. Syntactic change in Chinese: On grammaticalization. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica (Taipei) 59, 3: 617–52.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1989a. History of the passive constructions in Chinese until the 10th century. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 17, 2: 335–72.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1989b. History of the comparative constructions in Chinese from the 5th century BC to the 14th century AD. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Sinology. Taipei: Academia Sinica, pp. 589–612.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1991. Some remarks on the history of Chinese classifiers. In Clancy and Thompson 1991, pp. 106–26.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1994. On the history of Chinese locative prepositions. Zhonguo jing nei yeyan ji yuyanxue 2: 361–87.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1996. Recent issues in Chinese historical syntax. In Huang and Li 1996, pp. 161–213.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1998. On the history of classifiers in Archaic and Medieval Chinese. In T’sou 1998, pp. 39–68.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 1999. On the modal auxiliaries of possibility in Classical Chinese. In Selected papers from the Fifth International Conference in Chinese Linguistics, pp. 27–52. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 2001. On the modal auxiliaries of volition in Classical Chinese. In Chappell 2001a, pp. 172–87.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain 2015. Grammatical change in Sinitic languages and its relation to typology. In Chappell 2015a, pp. 53–78.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2017. The grammaticalization of headshakes: From head movement to negative head. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 9–50.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland and Steinbach, Markus. 2006. Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Linguistics in Potsdam 24: 5–98.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland and Steinbach, Markus 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 681–93.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Harris and Ramat 1987, pp. 193–223.Google Scholar
Pinto de Lima, José. 2002. Grammaticalization, subjectification and the origin of phatic markers. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 363–78.Google Scholar
Pinto de Lima, José 2006. Zur Grammatikalisierung von dt. drohen und pg. ameaar. In Schmidt-Radefeldt 2006, pp. 205–20.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1995. The emergence of taki as a complementizer in Sranan: On substrate influence, universals, and gradual creolization. In Arends 1995, pp. 113–48.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1979. Exklusivierung, Reflexivierung, Identifizierung, relationale Auszeichnung: Variationen zu einem semantisch-pragmatischen Thema. In Rosengren 1979, pp.330–54.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans (ed.). 2008 [2003]. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. (EUROTYP 9.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Popjes, Jack and Popjes, Jo. 1986. Canela-Krahô. In Derbyshire and Pullum 1986, pp. 128–99.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic variation. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 209–24.Google Scholar
Post, Marike. 1992. The serial verb construction in Fa d’Ambu. In Colibri 1992, pp. 153–69.Google Scholar
Poulos, George. 1986. Instances of semantic bleaching in South-Eastern Bantu. In Dimmendaal 1986, pp. 281–96.Google Scholar
Premper, Waldfried (ed.). 2004. Dimensionen und Kontinua: Beiträge zu Hansjakob Seilers Universalienforschung. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Prévost, S. 2003. La grammaticalisation: unidirectionnalité et statut. Le Français Moderne – Revue de linguistique Française, CILF (Conseil International de la Langue Française), 2, 71: 144–66.Google Scholar
Prost, André. 1964. Contribution à l’étude des langues voltaiques. (Mémoires de l’Institut Français d’Afrique Noire 70.) Dakar: IFAN.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2008. Discourse frequency and the collapse of the adposition vs affix distinction in Lakota. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 269–92.Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc. 1998. Nom, verbe et prédicat en Sikuani (Colombie). (Langues et sociétés d´Amérique traditionelle 6.) Paris: Peeters (SELAF).Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc 2000. Syntaxe sikuani (Colombie). (Langues et sociétés d’Amérique traditionelle 7.) Paris: Peeters (SELAF).Google Scholar
Queixalós, Francesc 2002. The notion of transfer in Sikuani causatives. In Shibatani 2002, pp. 319–39.Google 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
Qvonje, Jørn I. 1979. Die Grammatikalisierung der Präposition na im Bulgarischen. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 317–51.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 1985. Spatial metaphors underlying prepositions of causality. In Paprotté and Dirven 1985, pp. 177–207.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter and Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds). 2004. Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rajak, Norizan. 1993. The grammaticalization of verbs in Kedah Malay. Working Papers in Linguistics (Honolulu) 25: 121–33.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, Rao Sahib G. V. 1931. A manual of the So:ra (or Savara) language. Madras: Government Press.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1982. Ein Beispiel von ‘reanalysis’ typologisch betrachtet. Folia Linguistica 16: 365–83.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo 1998. Typological comparison and linguistic areas: some introductory remarks. Language Sciences 20, 3: 227–40.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo 1999. Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations. Linguistics 37, 1: 157–80.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Schaner-Wolles et al. 2001, pp. 393–401.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo 2011. Adverbial grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 499–507.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo and Roma, Elisa (eds.). 2007. Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. (Studies in Language Companion Series 88.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ramirez, Henri. 1992. Le bahuana, une nouvelle langue de la familie Arawak. (Chantiers Amérindia 17, supplement 1.) Paris: Association d’Ethnolinguistique Amérindienne.Google Scholar
Ransom, Evelyn N. 1988. The grammaticalization of complementizers. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 364–74.Google Scholar
Rapold, Christian and Zaugg-Coretti, Silvia. 2009. Exploring the periphery of the Central Ethiopian Linguistic Area: Data from Yemsa and Benchnon. In Crass and Meyer 2009, pp. 59–81.Google Scholar
Rauh, Gisa (ed.). 1991. Approaches to prepositions. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 358.) Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1994. The development of the compound pronouns in -body and -one in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky 1994, pp. 301–24.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Nurmi, Arja. 2011. Grammaticalization and language change in the individual. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 251–62.Google Scholar
Rawoens, Gudrun. 2017. The Swedish connective sa att ‘so that’: From subordinator to discourse marker. In Smith et al. 2017, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (niino mo-di). Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 12.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Reh, Mechthild 1996. Anywa language: Description and internal reconstructions. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen, Hohenstein, Christiane, and Pietsch, Lukas (eds.). 2007. Connectivity in grammar and discourse. (Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Reich, Uli. 2001. Grammatikalisierungsprozesse im modernen brasilianischen Pronominalsystem. In Schäfer-Prieß et al. 2001, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 2007. Modals, so-called semi-modals, and grammaticalization in German. Interdisciplinary Journal for German Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 12, 1: 1–56.Google Scholar
Renck, G. L. 1975. A grammar of Yagaria. (Pacific Linguistics Series B, 40.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica and Murray, Sarah E. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. Proceedings of SALT 23: 453–72.Google Scholar
Rettler, Josef. 1991. Infinitiv-complementizer in Englisch und Französisch lexifizierten Kreols. In Boretzky, Enninger, and Stolz 1991, pp. 139–60.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 1996. Semantics of verbs and grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2003a. Semantic changes in grammaticalization of postpositionoids from movement verbs in Korean. Language Research 39, 1: 50–69.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2003b. When stop goes further: From malta ‘stop’ to auxiliary verbs in Korean. Korean Language Research 13: 309–39.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2008. On the rise and fall of Korean nominalizers. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 239–64.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2010. Many uses of one place: Grammaticalization of han-tey ‘one place’. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17: 581–93.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2011. Grammaticalization in Korean. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 764–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2013. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: The case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences 34: 284–300.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2016a. From quoting to reporting to stance-marking: Rhetorical strategies and intersubjectification of reportative. Language Sciences 55: 36–54.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2016b. Grammatical forms with an attitude: Grammaticalization of auxiliary verbs in Korean. Paper presented at the Workshop for World Lexicon of Grammaticalization & Workshop for Grammaticalization Lexicon of Chinese Languages. Capital Normal University, Beijing (Jinlongtang Hotel), 11–13 November 2016.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2016c. Primary grammaticalizations in Korean. Paper presented at the Workshop for World Lexicon of Grammaticalization & Workshop for Grammaticalization Lexicon of Chinese Languages. Capital Normal University, Beijing (Jinlongtang Hotel), 11–13 November 2016.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha 2016d. Mwunpephwauy ihay [Understanding grammaticalization]. 2nd rev. edn. Seoul: Hankook Publisher.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha and Koo, Hyun Jung. 2014. Grammaticalization of causatives and passives and their recent development into stance markers in Korean. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50, 3: 309–37.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha and Koo, Hyun Jung 2015. Analogy-driven inter-categorial grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of -na in Korean. Lingua 66: 22–42.Google Scholar
Riis, Hans N. 1854. Grammatical outline and vocabulary of the Oji-language, with especial reference to the Akwapim-dialect, together with a collection of proverbs of the natives. Basel: Bahnmaier.Google Scholar
Rini, Joel. 1990. Dating the grammaticalization of the Spanish clitic pronoun. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 106: 354–70.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.). 1997. Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rivierre, Jean-Claude. 1980. La langue de Touho. Phonologie et grammaire du cèmuhî (Nouvelle-Calédonie). Paris: Selaf, Langues et civilisations à tradition orale 38.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine. 2013. Genealogically motivated grammaticalization. Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 147–75.Google Scholar
Robbeets, Martine and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). 2013. Shared grammaticalization. (Studies in Language Companion Series 132.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 1999. Synchronic grammaticalization and fractal grammar. Paper presented at the international conference on New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Potsdam, Germany, 17‒19 July 1999.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane (ed.). 2003a. Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation. (Afrique et Langage 5.) Louvain, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane 2003b. Polygrammaticalisation, grammaire fractale et propriétés d’échelle. In Robert 2003a, pp. 85–120.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane 2003c. Vers une typologie de la transcatégorialité. In Robert 2003a, pp. 255–70.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane 2004. The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory: Fractal grammar and transcategorial functioning. In Frajzyngier et al. 2004, pp. 119–42.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 209–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian 2010. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 1999. A formal approach to grammaticalization. Linguistics 37, 6: 1011–41.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Espiñeira, María José and Meirama, Belén López. 2008. On the grammaticalization of the Spanish expression puede que. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 293–314.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2008. On the history and present behaviour of subordinating that with adverbial conjunctions in English. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 315–31.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne 1999. The grammaticalization of the proximative in Tok Pisin. Language 75, 2: 322–46.Google 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, 3: 227–79.Google Scholar
Romero-Figeroa, Andrés. 1997. A reference grammar of Warao. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2004. The English s-genitive: A case of degrammaticalization? In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 73–96.Google Scholar
Rosengren, Inger (ed.). 1979. Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1978. (Lunder germanistische Forschungen 48.) Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik and Skärlund, Sanna. 2013. Grammaticalization in the present: The changes of modern Swedish typ. In Giacalone Ramat, Mauri, and Molinelli 2013, pp. 313–38.Google Scholar
Rosés Labrada, Jorge Emilio 2015. The Mako language: Vitality, grammar, and classification. PhD dissertation, The University of Western Ontario and Université Lumière-Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Rosés Labrada, Jorge Emilio 2016. The lexical origin of the Mako deictic roots. Paper presented at the 2016 Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 7–10 January.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D. 2001. Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in North-West Melanesia. In Aikhenvald and Dixon 2001, pp. 134–66.Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D. 2010b. The development of the Amharic definite article and an Indonesian parallel. Journal of Semitic Studies 55, 1: 103–14.Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D. 2011. The value of grammaticalization in Semitic. Aula Orientalis 29: 99–104.Google Scholar
Rühl, Philipp. 1970. Türkische Sprachlehre: Grammatische Einführung, Lesestücke und Wörterverzeichnisse. Heidelberg: Gross.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1987. A guide to the world’s languages, vol. 1: Classification. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Rust, F. 1969. Nama-Wörterbuch (J. G. Krönlein’s Wortschatz der Khoi-Khoin, revised and expanded by F. Rust). Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and der Wal, Marijke van. 2017. Discourse continuity and the written medium: Continuative relative clauses in the history of Dutch. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 113–38.Google Scholar
Ryu, Chang-Don. 1962. Hesahwa kokwu [From content word to function word]. Inmunkwahak (Yonsei University) 7: 1–25.Google Scholar
Sagarra, Nura and Toribio, Almeida Jacqueline (eds.). 2006. Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Salminen, Taru. 2002. Retention of abstract meaning: The essive case and grammaticalization of polyphony in Finnish. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 293–307.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.). 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samson, Ridder and Schadeberg, Thilo C.. 1994. Kiinimacho cha mahali: kiambishi tamati cha mahali -ni. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere (AAP, Cologne) 37: 127–38.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian and Brown, Penelope. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52, 3: 631–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian and Laberge, Suzanne. 1974. Acquisition of native speakers by a language. In DeCamp et al. 1974, pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2016. Agent-defocusing constructions from nominalized VPs: A crosslinguistic type? Studies in Language 40, 4: 894–954.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea 2017. Where do antipassive constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica 34, 2: 175–218.Google Scholar
Sansò, Andrea and Ramat, Anna Giacalone. 2016. Deictic motion verbs as passive auxiliaries: The case of Italian andare ʽgoʼ (and venire ʽcomeʼ). Transactions of the Philological Society 114, 1: 1–24.Google Scholar
Santandrea, Stefano. 1961. Comparative outline grammar of Ndogo – Sere – Tagbu – Bai – Bviri. (Museum Combonianum 13.) Bologna: Editrice Nigrizia.Google Scholar
Santandrea, Stefano 1965. Languages of the Banda and Zande groups: A contribution to a comparative study. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale.Google Scholar
Santos, Diana, Lindén, Krister, and Ng’ang’a, Wanjiku (eds.). 2012. Shall we play the festschrift game? Essays on the occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th birthday. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 1988a. On the grammaticalization of the verb ‘say/thus’: A typological study. Paper presented at the Symposium on Grammaticalization, Eugene, OR, 12–15 May 1988.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju 1988b. The case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 375–88.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju 1995. Unidirectional grammaticalization: Diachronic and crosslinguistic evidence. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 48, 4: 350–72.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju 1997. Internal and external factors in language change: Aspect in Tibeto-Kinnauri. (Reports from Uppsala University Linguistics 32.) Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Say, Sergey. 2004. Grammaticalization of word order: Evidence from Lithuanian. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 363–84.Google Scholar
Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. (Studies in Diversity Linguistics 7.) Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, Barbara. 1999. Periphrasen mit ‘haben’ und Infinitiv: Zwischen ‘Obligation’, ‘Futur’ und ‘Vermutung’. In Lang and Neumann-Holzschuh 1999, pp. 97–109.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, Barbara 2001. Agensorientierte und epistemische Bedeutung bei span. tener que. In Schäfer-Prieß et al. 2001, pp. 203–17.Google Scholar
Schäfer-Prieß, Barbara, Klöden, Hildegard, and Kailuweit, Rolf (eds.). 2001. Grammatikalisierung in den iberoromanischen Sprachen. (Pro lingua 33.) Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert.Google Scholar
Schaner-Wolles, Chris, Rennison, John, and Neubarth, Friedrich (eds.). 2001. Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Schemann, Hans and Schemann-Dias, Luiza. 1983. Die portugiesischen Verbalperiphrasen und ihre deutschen Entsprechungen. Tübingen: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René. 2006. Cliticisation and the evolution of morphology: A crosslinguistic study on phonology in grammaticalization. Konstanz: Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System, Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Schiering, René 2007. The phonological basis of linguistic rhythm: Crosslinguistic data and diachronic interpretation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 60, 4: 337–59.Google Scholar
Schiering, René 2010. Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization: Evidence from cliticization. In Stathi, Gehweiler, and König 2010, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schladt, Mathias. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Frajzyngier and Curl 2000a, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2010. To dare to or not to: Is auxiliarization reversible? In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 289–325.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Radefeldt, Jürgen (ed.). 2006. Portugiesisch kontrastiv gesehen und Anglizismen weltweit. (Rostocker Romanistische Arbeiten 10.) Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schneider, Cynthia. 2011. Na passive and na- associative in Abma: Shared properties; shared origin? Oceanic Linguistics 50, 2: 380–98.Google Scholar
Scholze, Lenka. 2012. On the grammaticalization of the definite article in Colloquial Upper Sorbian (CUS). In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 323–53.Google Scholar
Schøsler, Lene. 2010. A paradigmatic approach to language and language change. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 203–20.Google Scholar
Schøsler, Lene 2011. Scenarios of grammatical change in Romance languages. In Nørgård-Sørensen et al. 2011, pp. 237–325.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 2011. The discourse marker now: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2110–29.Google Scholar
Schrock, Terrill B. 2014. A grammar of Ik (Icé-tód): Northeast Uganda’s last thriving Kuliak language. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russel G. 1983. Kilba equational sentences. Studies in African Linguistics 14: 311–26.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: a study of event categorisation in an Australian language. PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva 2005. Der Allativ als Switch-Reference-Markierung in nordaustralischen Sprachen – ein ungewöhnlicher Grammatikalisierungspfad. Österreichische Linguistik-Tagung, handout, Graz, October 2005.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva 2006. Secondary predicates in Australian languages. In Everaert and van Riemsdijk 2006, pp. 180–208.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2017. Toward a cognitive typology of like-expressions. In Treis and Vanhove 2017, pp. 33–77.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin. 1993. Subject pronouns and person/number in Palenquero. In Byrne and Holm 1993, pp. 145–61.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 2000. Spanish evidence for implicature denials. Chicago Linguistic Society 36: 441–5.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker 1995, pp. 244–73.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob (ed.). 1978. Language universals. (Papers from the conference held at Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, 3–8 October 1976.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Seiler, Walter. 1985. Imonda, a Papuan language. (Pacific Linguistics Series B, 93.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1996. Classificatory particles in Kilivila. (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics.) New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter (ed.). 2000. Systems of nominal classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seo, Tae-gil. 2009. The study of postposition malgo and chigo. Korean Linguistics 45: 255–74.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena and López-Couso, María José (eds.). 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 77.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo, Brown, Roger, and Trotta, Joe. 1994. On the so called complex prepositions. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 29: 3–29.Google Scholar
Sexton, Amy L. 1999. Grammaticalization in American Sign Language. Language Sciences 21: 105–41.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi. 2002. The establishment of Modern Chinese grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi 2006. Motivations and mechanisms of grammaticalization in Chinese. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi 2011. Grammaticalization theory with special reference to Chinese. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi and Li, Charles N.. 2001. A history of grammaticalization in Chinese. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi and Li, Charles N. 2002. The establishment of the classifier system and the grammaticalization of the morphosyntactic particle de in Chinese. Language Sciences 24, 1: 1–15.Google Scholar
Shibasaki, Reijirou. 2010. Frequency as a cause of semantic change: With focus on the second person form omae in Japanese. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 225–44.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1991. Grammaticalization of topic into subject. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 93–133.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.). 2002. The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation. (Typological Studies in Language 48.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Bynon, Theodora (eds.). 1995. Approaches to language typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi and Pardeshi, Prashant. 2002. The causative continuum. In Shibatani 2002, pp. 85–126.Google Scholar
Shields, Janä K. 1988. A syntactic sketch of Silacayoapan Mixtec. In Bradley and Hollenbach 1988, pp. 305–449.Google Scholar
Shields, Kenneth. 2011. Linguistic typology and historical linguistics. In Song 2011, pp. 551–67.Google Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko and Suzuki, Satoko 2007. From quotative conditionals to emotive topic markers: A case of tteba and ttara in Japanese. Japanese and Korean Linguistics 15: 173–83.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 1979. Languages and their status. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 1985a. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 1985b. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2: Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of pidgin and creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter and Kintana, Noemi (eds.). 2008, Language contact and contact Languages. (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 7.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna and Song, Jae Jung (eds.). 1998. Case, typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake. (Typological Studies in Language 38.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Simeone-Senelle, Marie-Claude and Vanhove, Martine. 1997. La formation et l’évolution d’auxiliaires et particules verbales dans les langues sémitiques (langues sudarabiques et maltais). In Lemaréchal 1997, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
Simeoni, Antonio. 1978. Päri: A Luo language of Southern Sudan. Small grammar and vocabulary Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. 1997. Die Diachronie der deutschen Anredepronomina aus Sicht der Universalienforschung. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50: 267–81.Google Scholar
Simone, Raffaele (ed.). 1995. Iconicity in languages. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew. 2008. The grammaticalization of clausal nominalizers in Burmese. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 265–88.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1988. Case and complementiser suffixes in Warlpiri. In Austin 1988, pp. 205–18.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane and Bresnan, Joan. 1983. Control and obviation in Warlpiri. National Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 49–64.Google Scholar
Skinner, A. Neil. 1973. From Hausa to English: A study in paraphrase. Research in African Literatures 4: 154–64.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena. 2010. Die Nominalisatoren ‘Mensch’ und ‘Ding’ in den uralischen und turkischen Sprachen Sudsibiriens: I, Lexikon und Wortbildung. Finnich-Ugrische Mitteilungen 32/33. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, pp. 567–86.Google Scholar
Skribnik, Elena 2014. South Siberian Turkic languages in linguistic contact: Altay-kiži nominalizer constructions as a test case. In Besters-Dilger, Juliane, Dermarkar, Cynthia, Pfander, Stefan, and Rabus, Achim (eds.), Congruence in contact-induced language change: Language families, typological resemblance, and perceived similarity. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 258–74.Google Scholar
Smessaert, Hans and Van Belle, William. 2010. From manner expression to attitudinal discourse marker: The case of Dutch anders. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 137–89.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew D. M. 2011. Grammaticalization and language evolution. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 142–52.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew D. M., Trousdale, Graeme, and Waltereit, Richard (eds.). 2017. New directions in grammaticalization research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, Ellen L. 2015. A grammar of Papapana, with an investigation into language contact and endangerment. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle (Australia). http://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:16705?queryType=vitalDismax&query=ellen+smith+papapanaGoogle Scholar
Smith, Hiram L. 2018. Addressing questions of grammaticalization in creoles: It’s all about the methodology. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 372–93.Google Scholar
Smith, Richard D. 1973. Southern Barasano grammar. Microfiche. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sneddon, James N. 1975. Tondano phonology and grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 38.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min 2003. A grammar of pota ‘to see’: A panchronic perspective. Invited keynote presentation at the 13th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference, University of Arizona, 5–7 November 2003.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min and Bender, B. W.. [1973] 1984. A Ulithian grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, series C, 27.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min and Haig, John (eds.). 1997. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 6. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 1998. From quotation to sentence-final particle: The analysis of -ko in Modern Korean. In King 1998, pp. 351–67.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2002. The grammaticalization of honorific particles in Korean. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 309–25.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2006. Frequency effects in grammaticalization: From relative clause to clause connective in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15: 184–95.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2010. The role of frequency and prosody in the grammaticalization of Korean -canh-. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 245–73.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2011. Historical development of quotative constructions in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 18: 126–43.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2015. The emergence of utterance-final particles in Korean. In Hancil et al. 2015, pp. 181–95.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. 2016. Development of the discourse marker kulentey (‘but’ ‘by the way’) in Korean: A diachronic and synchronic approach. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17, 2: 231–54.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. and Kim, Jieun. 2008. A corpus-based discourse analysis of icey in Korean: A diachronic and synchronic perspective. Korean Linguistics 14, 177–202.Google Scholar
Sohn, Sung-Ock S. and Nam, Kilim. 2013. The formulaic expressions of ‘thing’ in spoken and written registers: A corpus study of bound noun kes and ke in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 20: 31–46.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 1997a. On the development of manner from give. In Newman 1997, pp. 327–48.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung 1997b. The history of Micronesian possessive classifiers and benefactive marking in Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 36–1: 29–64.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung 2005a. Grammaticalization and structural scope increase: Possessive-classifier-based benefactive marking in Oceanic languages. Linguistics 43, 4: 795–838.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung 2005b. The Korean language: Structure, use and context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung (ed.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Kyung-An. 2002. Korean reflexives and grammaticalization: A speaker-hearer dynamic approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55, 4: 340–53.Google Scholar
Song, Kyung-An and Heine, Bernd 2017. Some patterns of grammatical change in personal pronouns. Linguistic Association of Korea 25, 1: 139–62.Google Scholar
Spears, Richard A. 1972. A typology of locative structures in Manding languages. Paper read at the International Congress on Manding Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.). 1998. The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sreedhar, M. V. 1977. Standardization of Naga Pidgin. Journal of Creole Studies 1: 157–70.Google Scholar
Stafford, Roy L. 1967. An elementary Luo grammar: With vocabularies. Nairobi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stamenov, Maxim (ed.). 1992. Current advances in semantic theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stark, Elisabeth, Leiss, Elisabeth, and Abraham, Werner (eds.). 2007. Nominal determination: Typology, context constraints, and historical emergence. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stathi, Ekaterini, Gehweiler, Elke, and König, Ekkehard (eds.). 2010. Grammaticalisation: current views and issues. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steever, Sandford B., Walker, Carol A., and Mufwene, Salikoko S. (eds.). 1976. Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Steinkrüger, Patrick Oliver. 1995. Grammatikalisierungen von Auxiliarien und Copulae im Katalanischen der Decadència. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik 8: 35–62.Google Scholar
Steinkrüger, Patrick Oliver 1997. Zur Grammatikalisierung der haben-Verben im Katalanischen. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 50, 4: 329–38.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Roland C. 1969. Bagirmi grammar. (Linguistic Monograph Series 3.) Khartoum: Sudan Research Unit, University of Khartoum.Google Scholar
Stoebke, Renate. 1968. Die Verhältniswörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Stolz, Christel and Stolz, Thomas 2001. Mesoamerica as a linguistic area. In Haspelmath et al. 2001, pp. 1542–53.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 1985. Die Aktionsart Repetitiv in den portugiesisch-basierten Kreols. In Boretzky, Enninger, and Stolz 1985, pp. 143–67.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1986. Gibt es das kreolische Sprachwandelmodell? Vergleichende Grammatik des Negerholländischen. (Linguistik 46.) Frankfurt, Bern, and New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1987a. The development of the aux-category in pidgins and creoles: The case of the resultative-perfective and its relation to anteriority. In Harris and Ramat 1987, pp. 291–315.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1987b. Verbale Morphosyntax im Berbice und Negerhollands: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Grammatik der niederländisch-basierten Ueberseesprachen (1). In Maurer and Stolz 1987, pp. 167–204.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1990. Die aztekischen Numeralklassifikatoren: Indiz für die Verortung von Grammatikalisierungsprozessen zwischen Auf und Abbau? MS, Fachbereich III, Essen.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1991a. Forschungen zu den Interrelationen von Grammatikalisierung und Metaphorisierung: Von der Grammatikalisierbarkeit des Körpers, vol. 1: Vorbereitung (= ProPrinS 2). Essen: University of Essen.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1991b. Sprachbund im Baltikum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1992a. Von der Grammatikalisierbarkeit des Körpers, vol. 2: Einleitung. 1. Kritik der “Grammatik mit Augen und Ohren, Händen und Füßen.” (Arbeitspapiere des Projekts “Prinzipien des Sprachwandels” 7.) Essen: University of Essen.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 1992b. Sekundäre Flexionsbildung: Eine Polemik zur Zielgerichtetheit im Sprachwandel. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 2003. Not quite the right mixture. Chamorro and Maltese as candidates for the status of mixed languages. In Matras and Bakker 2003, pp. 271–315.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas 2007. Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian as donor language. In Rehbein, Hohenstein, and Pietsch 2007, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia, and Urdze, Aina. 2005. Comitatives and instrumentals. In Haspelmath et al. 2005, pp. 214–17.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia and Urdze, Aina 2006. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 33.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Strauss, Susan and Sohn, Sung-Ock S.. 1998. Grammaticalization, aspect, and emotion: The case of Japanese -te shimau and Korean -a/e pelita. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8: 217–30.Google Scholar
Strehlow, T. G. H. 1944. Aranda phonetics and grammar. Sydney: Australian National Research Council.Google Scholar
Stroomer, Harry. 1987. A comparative study of three southern Oromo dialects in Kenya. (Kuschitische Sprachstudien 6.) Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word order change and grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Chaofen 1998. Aspectual categories that overlap: A historical and dialectal perspective of the Chinese zhe. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 2: 153–74.Google Scholar
Sun, Chaofen and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2011. Gramaticalization and word order change. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 378–88.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko. 1998a. From a lexical noun to an utterance-final pragmatic particle: wake. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 67–92.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko 1998b. Grammaticization of clause-final elements: A commentary on Iguchi’s paper. In Ohori 1998a, pp. 129–34.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko 1999. Multifunctionality: The developmental path of the quotative tte in Japanese. In Fox, Jurafsky, and Michaelis 1999, pp. 50–64.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria. 1986. On the evolutionary paths of locative expressions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 515–27.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria 1988. The experiential basis of the grammar of space: Evidence from the languages of the world. PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria 1994. The grammar of space. (Typological Studies in Language 25.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Svorou, Soteria 2002. Semantic constraints in the grammaticalization of locative constructions. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 121–42.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf J.. 1997. Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Swartz, Stephen (ed.). 1982. Papers in Warlpiri grammar, in memory of Lothar Jagst. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, series a, vol. 6. Berrimah, NT.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve Eliot. 1982. Root and epistemic modals: Causality in two worlds. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8: 484–507.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve Eliot 1987. Metaphorical models of thought and speech: A comparison of historical directions and metaphorical mappings in the two domains. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 446–59.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve Eliot 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 389–405.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve Eliot 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sylvain, Suzanne. 1936. Le créole haitien: Morphologie et syntaxe. Wetteren: Imprimerie de Meester.Google Scholar
Szent-Iványi, Béla. 1964. Der ungarische Sprachbau. Eine kurze Darstellung mit Erläuterungen für die Praxis. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 229–72.Google Scholar
Taeymans, Martine. 2004. An investigation into the marginal modals dare and need in British present-day English: A corpus-based approach. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Taine-Cheikh, Catherine. 2013. Grammaticalized uses of the verb raʔā in Arabic: A Maghrebian specificity? In Lafkioui 2013, pp. 121–59.Google Scholar
Takada, Akira (ed.). 2016. Natural history of communication among the Central Kalahari San. (African Study Monograph, Supplementary Issue 52.) Kyoto: The Center for African Area Studies, Kyoto University.Google Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie and Gibson, Kathleen (eds.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tao, Liang. 2002. Phono-syntactic conspiracy and beyond: Grammaticalization in spoken Beijing Mandarin. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 277–92.Google Scholar
Thiele, Petra. 1991. Zur Numerusdiskussion im Nominalbereich portugiesischlexifizierter Kreol-Sprachen. In Boretzky et al. 1991, pp. 175–92.Google Scholar
Thiele, Petra 1993. Zum Ursprung serieller Verben in portugiesisch lexifizierten Kreolsprachen. In Boretzky et al. 1993, pp. 126–41.Google Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 1995. Tense systems in European languages, vol. 2. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf 2000. On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe. In Dahl 2000b, pp. 265–305.Google Scholar
Thomas, Jacqueline M. C. 1970. Contes, proverbes, devinettes ou énigmes, chants et prières Ngbaka-Ma-Bo (République Centrafricaine). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thompson, Lawrence and Thompson, M. Terry. 1992. The Thompson language. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Heine 1991b, pp. 313–29.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Suzuki, Ryoko. 2011. The grammaticalization of final particles. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 665–77.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Park, Joseph Sung-Yul, and Li, Charles N.. 2006. A reference grammar of Wappo. (University of California Publications, Linguistics, 138.) Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Ole Nedergaard (ed.). 2006. Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 279.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thornell, Christina. 1997. The Sango language and its lexicon (Sêndâ-yângâ tî sängö). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Thornes, Tim. 2013. Causation as “functional sink” in Northern Paiute. In Thornes et al. 2013, pp. 237–57.Google Scholar
Thornes, Tim, Andvik, Erik, Hyslop, Gwendolyn, and Jansen, Joana (eds.). 2013. Functional approaches to explanation: in honor of Scott DeLancey
. (Typological Studies in Language 103.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham, and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.). 2003. The Sino-Tibetan languages. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1982. A comparative study in Anem and Lusi. (Pacific Linguistics B-83.) Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Thurston, William R. 1987. Processes of change in the languages of north-western New Britain. (Pacific Linguistics B-99.) Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter Meijes. 1985. Frisian reference grammar. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris.Google Scholar
Todd, Loreto. 1979. Cameroonian: A consideration of ‘what’s in a name?’ In Hancock et al. 1979, pp. 281–94.Google Scholar
Toller, Thomas N. 1898. Anglo-Saxon dictionary, based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and enlarged by T. Northcote Toller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (ed.). 2003. The new psychology of language, vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Topping, Don. 1973. Chamorro reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Tops, Guy A. J., Devriendt, Betty, and Geukens, Steven (eds.). 1999. Thinking English grammar. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, Dion, Nathalie, and Lapierre, André (eds.). 2015. Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A.. 2011. Collocations in grammaticalization and variation. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 225–38.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro and Owens, Jonathan. 1993. Turku: A descriptive and comparative study. SUGIA (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika) 14: 177–267.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 2011. Uh and um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 173–96.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2014. On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language 21: 6–29.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains: tibétain central, ladakhi, Dzonkha et Amdo. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas and LaPolla, Randy J.. 2014. Towards a new approach to evidentiality: Issues and directions for research. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 37, 2: 240–63.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1998. The typological position of Basque: then and now. Language Sciences 20, 3: 313–24.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1975. Spatial expressions of tense and temporal sequencing: A contribution to the study of semantic fields. Semiotica 15, 3: 207–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1978. On the expression of spatio-temporal relations. In Greenberg, Ferguson, and Moravscik 1978a, pp. 369–400.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1980. Meaning-change in the development of grammatical markers. Language Science 2: 44–61.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1985a. ‘Conventional’ and ‘dead’ metaphors revisited. In Paprotté and Dirven 1985, pp. 17–56.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1986a. On the origins of and and but connectives in English. Studies in Language 10, 1: 137–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1986b. From polysemy to internal semantic reconstruction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 539–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 406–16.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 1: 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1993. The conflict promises/threatens to escalate into war. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 348–58.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1997. Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten. In Swan and Westvik 1997, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Minkova and Stockwell 2002, pp. 19–49.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda 2003, pp. 624–47.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2004. Exaptation and grammaticalization. In Akimoto 2004, pp. 133–56.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs and Diewald, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2011. Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991a. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991b. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott and Heine 1991a, pp. 189–218.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., Labrum, Rebecca, and Shepherd, Susan (eds.). 1980. Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 14.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., Meulen, Alice ter, Reilly, Judy Snitzer, and Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.). 1986. On conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2014. Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4, 2: 254–82.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. 2006. Dizque: A Colombian evidentiality strategy. Linguistics 44: 1269–97.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. and Silveira, Agripino S.. 2009. The role of frequency in first-person plural variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Nós vs a gente. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 2, 2: 347–76.Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne. 2000a. Komplexe Sätze im Khwe (Namibia). MA thesis, Institute for African Studies, University of Cologne, Cologne.Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne 2000b. NP coordination in Khwe (Central Khoisan). AAP (Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere) 63: 63–92.Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne 2012. Switch-reference and Omotic-Cushitic language contact in Southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Language Contact 5: 80–116.Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne 2017. Similative morphemes as purpose clause markers in Ethiopia and beyond. In Treis and Vanhove 2017, pp. 91–142.Google Scholar
Treis, Yvonne and Vanhove, Martine (eds.). 2017. Similative and equative constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective. (Typological Studies in Language 117.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tryon, Darrell T. 1987. Bislama: An introduction to the national language of Vanuatu. (Pacific Linguistics D–72.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tröbs, Holger. 1998. Funktionale Sprachbeschreibung des Jeli (West-Mande). (Mande Languages and Linguistics 3.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008a. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate in English. In Trousdale and Gisborne 2008, pp. 33–67.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2008b. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: the end of the English impersonal construction. In Fitzmaurice and Minkova 2008, pp. 301–26.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Davidse 2012, pp. 167–98.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2013a. Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language 37, 3: 491–514.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2013b. Gradualness in language change: A constructional perspective. In Giacalone Ramat, Mauri, and Molinelli 2013, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.). 2008. Constructional approaches to English grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Graeme, Trousdale and Norde, Muriel. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences 36: 32–46.Google Scholar
Tsangalidis, Anastasios. 1999. Will and tha: A comparative study of the category future. Thessaloniki, Greece: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
Tsangalidis, Anastasios 2004. Unidirectionality in the grammaticalization of modality in Greek. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 193–209.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru language of Kimberley, W.A. (Pacific Linguistics B-78.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic languages, vol. 1. London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. 1994a. A grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo), ed. Creider, C. A., vol. 1. (Nilo-Saharan, 8.1.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. 1994b. A grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo), ed. Creider, C. A., vol. 2. (Nilo-Saharan, 8.2.) Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. and Bryan, Margaret A.. 1966. Linguistic analyses: The non-Bantu languages of north-eastern Africa. London, New York, and Cape Town: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. and ole Tompo Mpaayei, J. T.. 1955. A Maasai grammar with vocabulary. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Turchetta, Barbara. 1998. On the application of the notion of grammaticalization to West African Pidgin English. In Ramat and Hopper 1998, pp. 273–88.Google Scholar
T’sou, Benjamin K. (ed.). 1998. Studia Linguistica Serica: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals (Stanford, CA) 9: 117–62.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell 1978a. The nature of future tenses. In Greenberg, Ferguson, and Moravcsik 1978a, pp. 83–123.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell 1978b. Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Greenberg, Ferguson, and Moravcsik 1978a, pp. 211–48.Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell 1978c. On the development of a definite article. In Seiler 1978, pp. 249–66.Google Scholar
Unger, J. Marshall. 2013. A possible grammaticalization in Old Japanese and its implications for the comparison of Korean and Japanese. In Robbeets and Cuyckens 2013, pp. 341–53.Google Scholar
Valente, José Francisco. 1964. Gramática umbundu. Lisbon: Junta de Investigações do Ultramar.Google Scholar
Vallejos, Rosa. 2016. A grammar of Kukama-Kukamiria: A language from the Amazon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
van Baar, , see BaarGoogle Scholar
van Bergen, , see BergenGoogle Scholar
van Bogaert, , see BogaertGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, René and Boerger, Brenda H.. 2011. A Proto-Oceanic passive? Evidence from Bola and Natügu. Oceanic Linguistics 50, 1: 221–46.Google Scholar
van den Nest, Daan. 2010. Should conditionals be emergent …: Asyndetic subordination in German and English as a challenge to grammaticalization research. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 93–136.Google Scholar
van de Velde, Freek and Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2017. External possessors in West Germanic and Romance: Differential speed in the drift toward NP configurationality. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 353–99.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, , see AuweraGoogle Scholar
van Driem, , see DriemGoogle Scholar
van Everbroeck, , see EverbroeckGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, , see GelderenGoogle Scholar
van Kampen, Jacqueline and Nouwen, Rick (eds.). 2010. Linguistics in the Netherlands 27. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van linden, An, Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, and Davidse, Kristin. 2010. Formal evidence in grammaticalization research. (Typological Studies in Language 94.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Olmen, Daniel, Cuyckens, Hubert, and Ghesquière, Lobke (eds.). 2017. Aspects of grammaticalization: (Inter)subjectivity and directionality. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 305.) Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
van Sluijs, Robbert. 2015. Counterfactuality in Virgin Islands Dutch Creole (Negerhollands). Paper presented at the Workshop on Counterfactuality, Radboud University, Nijmegen, July 2015.Google Scholar
Veenstra, Tonjes. 1996. Grammaticalized verbs in Saramaccan: The interplay between syntax and semantics. In Baker and Syea 1996, pp. 95–112.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya. (Studies in Language Companion Series 87.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth, Skopeteas, Stevros, Shin, Yong-Min, Nishina, Yoko, and Helmbrecht, Johannes (eds.). 2008. Studies on grammaticalization. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 205.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vernaudon, Jacques. 2011. Grammaticalization of Tahitian mea ‘thing, matter’ into a stative aspect. In Moyse-Faurie and Sabel 2011, pp. 319–40.Google Scholar
Vernus, Pascal. 1997. La grammaticalisation en égyptien ancien: Phrase nominale et morphogenèse de l’inaccompli et du futur. In Lemaréchal 1997, pp. 63–83.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2014. The negative existential cycle revisited. Linguistics 52: 1327–69.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba 2016. The negative existential cycle through the lens of comparative data. In van Gelderen 2016, pp. 139–87.Google Scholar
Vincent, Diane, Votre, Sebastiao, and LaForest, Marty. 1993. Grammaticalisation et post-grammaticalisation. Langues et Linguistique 19: 71–103.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1982. The development of the auxiliaries Habere and Esse in Romance. In Vincent and Harris 1982, pp. 71–96.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel and Börjars, Kersti. 2010. Grammaticalization and models of language. In Traugott and Trousdale 2010, pp. 279–99.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel and Harris, Martin B. (eds.). 1982. Studies in the Romance verb: Essays offered to Joe Cremona on the occasion of his 60th birthday. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline. 2004. Conditionals and subjectification: Implications for a theory of semantic change. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 169–92.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard. 1980. The etymology of the Bantu perfect. In Bouquiaux 1980, pp. 487–92.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard (ed.). 2005. Studies in African linguistic typology. (Typological Studies in Language 64.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. 1993. Über den Zusammenhang von definitem Artikel und Ferndeixis. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 46: 222–33.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. and Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2000. Approaches to the typology of word classes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Voisin, Sylvie and Vittrant, Alice. 2012. Pluriactionnalité temporelle en birman et wolof: Les cas de répétition externe. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 107, 1: 353–77.Google Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand. 2008. The grammaticalization cline of cardinal numeral systems. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 289–308.Google Scholar
Vorbichler, Anton. 1971. Die Sprache der Mamvu. (Afrikanistische Forschungen 5.) Glückstadt: Augustin.Google Scholar
Vossen, Rainer and Bechhaus-Gerst, Marianne (eds.). 1983. Nilotic studies: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Languages and History of the Nilotic Peoples, Cologne, January 4–6, 1982, part 1. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 10.1.) Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Vossen, Rainer, Mietzner, Angelika, and Meißner, Antje. 2000. Mehr als nur Worte…: Afrikanistische Beiträge zum 65. Geburtstag von Franz Rottland. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Vostrikova, Natalia. 2007. The experiential crosslinguistically. Paper presented at the 7th meeting of the Association of Linguistic Typology, Paris, September 24 –28, 2007.Google Scholar
Vuillermet, Marine. 2012. A Grammar of Ese Ejja, a Takanan Language of the Bolivian Amazon. PhD Dissertation, Université Lumière Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Vuillermet, Marine 2015. The allative in Ese’eja: Grammaticalization or homophony? Newly identified paths of grammaticalization in a Meso- and South American language. Paper presented at Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 28 September 2015.Google Scholar
Vuillermet, Marine 2018. Grammatical fear morphemes in Ese Ejja. Making the case for a morphosemantic apprehensional domain. In Maïa Ponsonnet and Marine Vuillermet 2018, Morphology and emotions across the world’s languages. Special issue of Studies in Language 42(1).Google Scholar
Vykypěl, Bohumil. 2010. Das Problem der sprachlichen Elementarverwandtschaft. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2006. Typology of heavy and light again or the eternal return of the same. Studies in Language 30, 1: 69–113.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard 2012. Grammaticalization clines in space: Zooming in on synchronic traces of diffusion processes. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 233–72.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji. 1979. The development of the Swahili object marker: A study of the interaction of syntax and discourse. In Givón 1979b, pp. 505–24.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2011. Grammaticalization and discourse. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 413–23.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Kazuha. 2000. The development of aspect in Japanese. MS, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Waters, Bruce E. 1989. Djinang and Djinba: A grammatical and historical perspective. (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, 114.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Watkins, Laurel. 1984. A grammar of Kiowa. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2002. The evolution of the German particle denn. In Wischer and Diewald 2002, pp. 379–94.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide 2008. The regrammaticalization of linking elements in German. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp. 333–55.Google Scholar
Wells, Margaret. 1979. Siroi grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 51.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1968. Efik. (Occasional Publications 11.) Ibadan: Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan.Google Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1976. A grammar of Vai. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 84.) Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Werner, Otmar. 1986. Neuere schwedische Modalverben und ihre deutschen Entsprechungen. In Naumann et al. 1986, p. 104.Google Scholar
Werner, Roland. 1987. Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). (Nilo-Saharan 1.) Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich. 1905. Wörterbuch der Ewe-Sprache. Teil 1: Ewe-Deutsch. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich 1912. A short grammar of the Shilluk language. Philadelphia: Board of Foreign Missions of the United Presbyterian Church of North America.Google Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich 1921. Die Gola-Sprache in Liberia: Grammatik, Texte und Wörterbuch. (Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde 6.) Hamburg: L. Friederichsen.Google Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich [1924] 1969. Die Kpelle-Sprache in Liberia: Grammatische Einführung, Texte und Wörterbuch. (Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen, Beiheft 6.) Berlin: Reimer. Reprinted: Nendeln and Liechtenstein: Kraus.Google Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich and Melzian, H. J.. 1930. The Kpelle language in Liberia. Berlin: Reimer and Vohsen.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2011. Grammaticalization and prosody. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 331–41.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Sören. 1993. Grammaticalization in Mixe-Zoquean languages. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 46, 1: 45–60.Google Scholar
Wiebe, Grace, Libben, Gary, Priestly, Tom, Smyth, Ron, and Wang, Sam (eds.). 2006. Phonology, morphology, and the empirical imperative: Papers in honour of Bruce Derwing. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Wiegand, Nancy. 1982. From discourse to syntax: for in early English causal clauses. In Ahlqvist 1982, pp. 385–93.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2002. Grammatikalisierungstheorie. Derivation und Konstruktionen: am Beispiel des klassifizierenden Aspektes, des Passivs und des Subjektimpersonal im slavisch-baltischen Areal. Habilitationsschrift (postdoctoral thesis), University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn 2004. The evolution of passives as grammatical constructions in Northern Slavic and Baltic languages. In: Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer 2004, pp. 271–331.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn 2011a. The grammaticalization of passives. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 532–43.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn 2011b. Grammaticalization in Slavic languages. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 738–51.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn and Hansen, Björn. 2012. Assessing the range of contact-induced grammaticalization in Slavonic. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 67–155.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn and Seržant, Ilja A.. 2017. Diachrony and typology of Slavic aspect: What does morphology tell us? In Bisang and Malchukov 2017, pp. 239–307.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn and Wälchli, Bernhard. 2012. Contact-induced grammatical change: Diverse phenomena, diverse perspectives. In Wiemer et al. 2012, pp. 3–64.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn, Wälchli, Berhard, and Hansen, Björn (eds.). 2012. Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 242.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wigger, Lars-Georg. 2001. Ptg. ter und haver in Texten des 13. bis 17. Jahrhunderts. In Schäfer-Prieß et al. 2001, pp. 113–30.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2007. Routes from gesture to language. In Pizzuto, E., Pietrandrea, P., and Simone, R. 2017, Verbal and signed languages. Comparing structures, constructs, and methodologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. PhD dissertation. Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas L. 1988. A crosslinguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 1: 51–97.Google Scholar
Willett, Thomas L. 1991. A reference grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Williamson, Kay. 1965. A grammar of the Kolokuma dialect of Ijo. (West African Language Monographs 2.) London, New York, and Ibadan: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 2007. Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics 45, 2: 271–310.Google Scholar
Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher, and Breitbath, Anne. 2013a. Comparing diachronies of negation. In Willis, Lucas, and Breitbath 2013b, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher, and Breitbath, Anne (eds.) 2013b. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Patricia R. 1980. Ambulas grammar. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘Methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein 2000, pp. 355–70.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse 2011. Grammaticalization and word formation. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 357–64.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language 49.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wise, Mary Ruth. 1990. Valence-changing affixes in Maipuran Arawakan languages. In Payne, pp. 89–116.Google Scholar
Wolf, Paul P. de. 1981. Zur Herkunft der Verbalextension im Fang. Afrika und Übersee 64: 59–80.Google Scholar
Wolfart, Christoph. 1973. Plains Cree: A grammatical study. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 63, 5.) Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Wolff, Ekkehard. 1983. A grammar of the Lamang language (Gwàd Làmàŋ). (Afrikanistische Forschungen 10.) Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Wong, Kwok-shing. 2004. The acquisition of polysemous forms: The case of bei2 in Cantonese. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 325–43.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1979. The developing complementizer system of Tok Pisin: Syntactic change in process. In Hill 1979, pp. 108–24.Google Scholar
Wordick, Frank J. F. 1982. The Yindjibarndi language. (Pacific Linguistics, Series C, 71.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison (ed.). 2002. The transition to language. (Studies in the Evolution of Language.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, James (ed.). 2015. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wu, Xiu-Zhi Zoe. 2004. Grammaticalization and language change in Chinese: A formal view. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wu, Yunji. 1999. An etymological study of disposal and passive markers in Hunan dialects. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27 (2): 90–123.Google Scholar
Wu, Yunji 2005. A synchronic and diachronic study of the grammar of the Chinese Xiang dialects. (Trends in Linguistics 162.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wüllner, Franz. 1831. Über Ursprung und Urbedeutung der sprachlichen Formen. Münster: Theissingsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard and Tony, McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Xing, Janet Zhiqun. 2015. A comparative study of semantic change in grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chinese and Germanic languages. Studies in Language 39, 3: 593–633.Google Scholar
Yae, Sun-Hee. 2008. The grammatical evolution of concessive prepositions despite and in spite of. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 8, 3: 317–36.Google Scholar
Yae, Sun-Hee 2010. Grammaticalization of even in terms of subjectification, intersubjectification and modality. Modern Studies in English Language and Literature 54, 4: 157–72.Google Scholar
Yae, Sun-Hee 2014. On the increase of speaker-orientation from modality to mood of ‘fear’-predicates in English. Linguistic Research 31, 1: 165–82.Google Scholar
Yae, Sun-Hee 2015. Grammaticalization of ‘case particle + taka’ in Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 86: 31–46.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Kazuyuki. 2004. A typological, historical, and functional study of adpositions in the languages of the world. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Yan, Yaoliang. 2003. The grammaticalization of Yu from a verb to a function word. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Yang, In-Seok. 2000. The emerging particle poko in Korean: A grammaticalization. In De Guzman and Bender 2000, pp. 62–79.Google Scholar
Yang, Yang. 2007. Tense and aspect in Chinese Pidgin English. MA thesis, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Harsta, Karen, and Wrona, Janick. 2011. Introduction: Nominalization strategies in Asian languages. In Yap, Foong Ha, Grunow-Harsta, Karen, and Wrona, Janick (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–58.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Choi, Pik-ling, and Cheung, Kam-siu. 2010. Delexicalizing di: How a Chinese noun has evolved into an attitudinal nominalizer. In Van linden et al. 2010, pp. 63–91.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha and Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2003. From causatives to passives: A passage in some East and Southeast Asian languages. In Casad and Palmer 2003, pp. 419–45.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha and Matthews, Stephen. 2008. The development of nominalizers in East Asian and Tibeto-Burman languages. In López-Couso and Seoane 2008, pp.309–41.Google Scholar
Yap, Foong Ha, Matthews, Stephen, and Horie, Kaoru. 2004. From pronominalizer to pragmatic marker: Implications for unidirectionality from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 137–68.Google Scholar
Ylikovski, Jussi. 2017. Similarity, equality and the like in North Saami. In Treis and Vanhove 2017, pp. 259–89.Google Scholar
Yue, Anne O. 1998. Zhi in pre-Qin Chinese. Paper presented at the Stanford Conference on the History of Chinese Syntax, Stanford, CA, 17–18 March 1995.Google Scholar
Zariquiey, Roberto. 2018. Diachronic stories of body-part nouns in some languages of South America. In Narrog and Heine 2018, pp. 350–71.Google Scholar
Zaugg-Coretti, Silvia. 2017. Similative morphemes and their grammaticalisations in Yemsa. In Treis and Vanhove 2017, pp. 341–57.Google Scholar
Zavala, Roberto. 2000. Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). In Senft 2000, pp. 114–46.Google Scholar
Zeevaert, Ludger. 2006. Variation und kontaktinduzierter Wandel im Altschwedischen. (Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, series B, 74.) Hamburg: Universität Hamburg.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Redefining unidirectionality: Is there life after modality? In Fischer, Norde, and Perridon 2004a, pp. 115–35.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra 2011. The grammaticalization of modality. In Narrog and Heine 2011, pp. 592–601.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra 2015. Converging grammars: Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra 2017. Historical replication in contact grammaticalization. In Van Olmen et al. 2017, pp. 311–52.Google Scholar
Zima, Petr (ed.). 1995. Time in languages. Prague: Institute for Advanced Studies at Charles University and the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1935. The psychobiology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter and Abraham, Werner (eds.). 2002. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar