Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 89: 369–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1993. Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. and Bower, Gordon H.. 1973. A propositional theory of recognition memory. Memory and Cognition 2(3): 406–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arbib, Michael A. 2003. The evolving mirror system: a neural basis for language readiness. In Christiansen, Morten H. and Kirby, S. (eds.), Language evolution, 182–200. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Aske, Jon. 1990. Disembodied rules vs. patterns in the lexicon: testing the psychological reality of Spanish stress rules. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16: 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Booij, G. E. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to morphology. In Bod, R., Hay, J. and Jannedy, S. (eds.), Probability theory in linguistics, 229–87. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bailey, Todd M., and Hahn, Ulrike. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44: 568–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, Naomi. 1977. Language acquisition and historical change. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth. 1994. Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. In Gajdusek, D.C., McKhann, G.M., and Bolis, C.L. (eds.), Evolution and the neurology of language. Discussions in neuroscience 10(1–2): 136–49.

Bates, E., Bertherton, I. and Snyder, L.. 1988. From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, Thal, Donna and Marchman, Virginia. 1991. Symbols and syntax: a Darwinian approach to language development. In Krasnegor, N., Rumbaugh, D. M., Schiefelbusch, R. L. and Kennedy, M. Studdert- (eds.), Biological and behavioral determinants of language development, 29–65. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay, and Bybee, Joan. 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59: Suppl. 1, December, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, Alan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, Gregory, Michelle and Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2): 1001–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berlin, Brent and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Bernstein, Basel. 1972. Social class, language and socialization. In Giglioli, P. (ed.), Language and social context. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Google Scholar

Beths, Frank. 1999. The history of DARE and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37: 1069–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English. Language 62: 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter. 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: the case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 109–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boas, Hans. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bowdle, Brian F. and Gentner, Dedre. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112: 193–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Boyland, Joyce T. 1996. Morphosyntactic change in progress: a psycholinguistic approach. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Bradley, H. 1904. The making of English. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., and Franks, J. J.. 1971. The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology 2: 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Briscoe, Ted. 2003. Grammatical assimilation. In Christiansen, M. and Kirby, S. (eds.), Language evolution, 295–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Browman, Catherine P., and Goldstein, Louis M.. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49: 155–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brown, Esther. 2004. Reduction of syllable initial /s/ in the Spanish of New Mexico and southern Colorado: a usage based approach. Dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1986. On the nature of grammatical categories: a diachronic perspective. In Choi, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 17–34.

Bybee, Joan L. 1988a. Morphology as lexical organization. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 119–41. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988b. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 247–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1988c. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 350–79. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 235–54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1995. The semantic development of past tense modals in English. In Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.) Modality in grammar and discourse, 503–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1997. Semantic aspects of morphological typology. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 25–37. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1998a. A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution. Evolution of Communication 2: 249–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1998b. ‘Irrealis’ as a grammatical category. Anthropological linguistics 40: 257–71.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1998c. The emergent lexicon. CLS 34: the panels, 421–35. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 279–93.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2000a. Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In Broe, M. and Pierrehumbert, J. (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 5: Language acquisition and the lexicon, 250–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 216–34.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2000b. The phonology of the lexicon: evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 65–85. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 199–215.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001a. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001b. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In Bybee, J. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 1–17. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2002a. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givón, T. and Malle, B. (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language, 109–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 313–35.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2002b. Word frequency and context use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14: 261–90. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 235–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2003a. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language, Vol. II, 145–67. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2003b. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 336–57.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2005. Restrictions on phonemes in affixes: a crosslinguistic test of a popular hypothesis. Linguistic Typology 9: 165–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2006a. From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2006b. Language change and universals. In Mairal, R. and Gil, J. (eds.), Linguistic universals, 179–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2008. Formal universals as emergent phenomena: the origins of Structure Preservation. In Good, J. (ed.), Language universals and language change, 108–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2009a. Grammaticization: implications for a theory of language. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Őzçalişkan, S., and Nakamura, K. (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 345–56. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2009b. Language universals and usage-based theory. In Christiansen, M. H., Collins, C., and Edelman, S. (eds.), Language universals, 17–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Brewer, Mary A.. 1980. Explanation in morphophonemics: changes in Provençal and Spanish preterite forms. Lingua 52: 201–42. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Pardo, Elly. 1981. On lexical and morphological conditioning of alternations: a nonce-probe experiment with Spanish verbs. Linguistics 19: 937–68. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 74–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Why small children cannot change language on their own: evidence from the English past tense. In Alqvist, A. (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 29–37. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Moder, Carol L.. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59: 251–70. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 127–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In Ramat, A. Giacalone, Carruba, O. and Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 109–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William, and Perkins, Revere. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, E. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.II, 17–58. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37(4): 575–96. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 65–85. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 269–78.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and McClelland, James L.. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In Ritter, N. A. (ed.), The role of linguistics in cognitive science. Special issue of The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4): 381–410.

Bybee, Joan, and Eddington, David. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82: 323–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Cacoullos, Rena Torres. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, and K. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, Vol. I, 187–217. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What's wrong with grammaticalization? In Campbell, L. (ed.), Grammaticalization: a critical assessment. Special issue of Language Sciences23 (2–3), 113–61.

Carey, Kathleen. 1994. The grammaticalization of the Perfect in Old English: an account based on pragmatics and metaphor. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 103–17. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Casenheiser, Devin, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2005. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8: 500–08.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In Tanner, D. (ed.), Spoken and written language: exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chevrot, Jean-Pierre, Beaud, Laurence and Varga, Renata. 2000. Developmental data on a French sociolinguistic variable: post-consonantal word-final /R/. Language Variation and Change 12: 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2006. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizaretta, M. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clausner, Tim, and Croft, William. 1997. The productivity and schematicity of metaphor. Cognitive Science 21: 247–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliary. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Coleman, John, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. Computational phonology: proceedings of the 3rd meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, 49–56. Somerset: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Company Company, Concepción . 2006. Subjectification of verbs into discourse markers: semantic-pragmatic change only? In Cornillie, B. and Delbecque, N. (eds.), Topics in subjectification and modalization, 97–121. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Contini-Morava, Ellen. 1989. Discourse pragmatics and semantic categorization: the case of negation and tense-aspect with special reference to Swahili. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Coste, Jean, and Redondo, Augustin. 1965. Syntaxe de l'espagnol moderne. Paris: Société d'Edition d'Enseignement Superieur.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman Linguistic Library.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William, and Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curme, George O. 1931. A grammar of the English language. Essex: Verbatim.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Eva, and Lieven, Elena. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1995. The marking of the episodic/generic distinction in tense-aspect systems. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. (eds.), The generic book, 412–25. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 471–80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2006. Corpus del español. (100 million words, 1200s–1900s). Available online at www.corpusdelespanol.org. Accessed Autumn 2006.

Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic ‘do’: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Leek, F., and Koopman, W. F. (eds.), In Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 45–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: verbal constructions. London: Longmans.Google Scholar

Díaz-Campos, Manuel. 2004. Acquisition of sociolinguistic variables in Spanish: do children acquire individual lexical forms or variable rules? In Face, T. (ed.), Laboratory approaches to Spanish phonology, 221–36. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar

D' Introno, Franco, and Sosa, Juan Manuel.. 1986. Elisión de la /d/ en el español de Caracas: aspectos sociolingüísticos e implicaciones teóricas. In Cedeño, R. A. Núñez, Urdaneta, I. Páez, and Guitart, J. (eds.), Estudios sobre la fonología del español del Caribe, 135–63. Caracas: Ediciones La Casa de Bello.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger, and Tomasello, Michael. 2005. A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dietrich, R., Klein, Wolfgang and Noyau, C.. 1995. The acquisition of temporality in a second language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diver, William. 1964. The system of agency in the Latin noun. Word 20: 178–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1964. Biology, molecular and organismic. American Zoologist 4: 443–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Donald, Merlin. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Donald, Merlin. 1998. Mimesis and the executive suite: missing links in language evolution. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language, 44–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53: 810–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drachman, Gaberell. 1978. Child language and language change: a conjecture and some refutations. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology, 123–44. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Object-verb order and adjective-noun order: dispelling a myth. Lingua 74: 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 343–65. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eddington, David. 1999. On ‘becoming’ in Spanish: a corpus analysis of verbs of expressing change of state. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18: 23–46.Google Scholar

Eddington, David. 2000. Stress assignment in Spanish within the analogical modeling of language. Language 76: 92–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary DO: the establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 1996. Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics – introduction to the special issue. Applied linguistics 27(4): 558–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Erman, Britt, and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle. Text 20: 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fente, R. 1970. Sobre los verbos de cambio o devenir. Filología Moderna 38: 157–72.Google Scholar

Fidelholtz, James. 1975. Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. Chicago Linguistic Society 11: 200–13.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., and Kay, Paul. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1): 1–33.CrossRef

Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O' Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64: 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Foulkes, Gerald, and Docherty, Paul. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34: 409–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, Carol A., and Housum, Jonathan. 1987. Talkers' signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26: 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. 1987. The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy reinterpreted: subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis. Language 63: 856–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A., Large, Nathan R., Zawaydeh, Bushra and Pisoni, David B.. 2001. Emergent phonotactic generalizations in English and Arabic. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 159–80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

García, Erica., and Putte, Florimon. 1989. Forms are silver, nothing is gold. Folia Linguistica Historica 8(1–2): 365–84.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science 7: 155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Markman, Arthur B.. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52: 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W., and O' Brien, Jennifer E.. 1990. Idioms and mental imagery: the metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition 36(11): 35–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archeologist's field trip. CLS 7: 384–415. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1973. The time-axis phenomenon. Language 49: 890–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 47–112. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York/San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. 2002. Biolinguistics: the Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7: 219–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., Casenheiser, Devin and Sethuraman, N.. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 289–316.Google Scholar

Goldinger, Stephen. 1996. Word and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 22: 1166–83.Google Scholar

Goldinger, Stephen, Luce, Paul and Pisoni, David. 1989. Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language 28: 501–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldsmith, John, and Woisetschlaeger, E.. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 79–89.Google Scholar

Goossens, Louis. 1987. The auxiliarization of the English modals: a functional grammar view. In Harris, M. and Ramat, P. (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries (Trends in linguistics, 35), 111–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Goossens, Louis. 1990. Cunnan, conne(n), can: the development of a radial category. In Kellermann, G. and Morrissey, M. D. (eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: language history and cognition, 377–94. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals: with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1969. Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Puhvel, J. (ed.), Substance and structure of language, 147–203. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978a. Diachrony, synchrony and language universals. In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C. and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of human language: method and theory, Vol.I, 61–92. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978b. How do languages acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C. and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of human language, Vol.III, 47–82. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.). 1978. Universals of human language: method and theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Gregory, Michelle, Raymond, William, Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric and Jurafsky, Daniel. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. CLS35: 151–66. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Gries, Stefan, Hampe, Beate and Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 635–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gurevich, Olga, Johnson, Matt, and Goldberg, Adele E.. To appear. Incidental verbatim memory for language. Language and Cognition.

Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 3–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 2002. Systematization and the origin of rules: the case of subject-verb inversion in questions. Studies in Language 26(3): 573–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris. 1962. Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18: 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harrington, Jonathan. 2006. An acoustic analysis of ‘happy-tensing’ in the Queen's Christmas broadcasts. Journal of Phonetics 34: 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive – a universal path of grammaticization, Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22(2): 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hatcher, Anna G. 1951. The use of the Progressive form in English. Language 27: 254–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2009. Language universals and the Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis. In Christiansen, M., Collins, C. and Edelman, S. (eds.), Language universals, 54–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative?Linguistics 39: 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: affix-ordering revisited. Language 78: 527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer, and Baayen, Harald. 2002. Parsing and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 203–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer, and Bresnan, Joan. 2006. Spoken syntax: the phonetics of giving a hand in New Zealand English. The Linguistic Review 23(3): 321–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The genesis of grammar: a reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, and Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: H Buske.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hoffman, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: a corpus-based study. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hook, Peter Edwin. 1991. The emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan languages. In E. Closs T. and B. Heine (eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II, 5989. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 96–105. Amsterdam: North Holland. Reprinted in Bybee 2007: 23–34.Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. 1979. Child morphology and morphophonemic change. Linguistics17: 21–50. Reprinted in J. Fisiak (ed.) 1980. Historical morphology, 157–87. The Hague: Mouton.

Hooper, Joan B. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–97.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13: 139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.I, 17–35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1994. Phonogenesis. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 29–45. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 2008. Emergent serialization in English: pragmatics and typology. In Good, J. (ed.) Language universals and language change, 253–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60(4): 703–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney D., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E. (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 217–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51: 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1957 [1971]. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Reprinted in Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings II, 130–47. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1966 [1971]. Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes, 51. Reprinted in Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings II, 345–59. The Hague: Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman. 1990. Some questions of meaning. In Waugh, L. R. (ed.), On language: Roman Jakobson, 315–23. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

James, William. 1950 [1890]. Principles of psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. In Campbell, L. (ed.), Grammaticalization: a critical assessment. Special issue of Language Sciences, 23(2–3): 265–340.

Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part VI: Morphology. London: George Allen & Unwin; Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization. In Johnson, K. and Mullennix, J. W. (eds.), Talker variability in speech processing, 145–65. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P., and Stevenson, R.. 1970. Memory for syntax. Nature 227: 412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Johnson-Laird, P., Robins, C. and Velicogna, L.. 1974. Memory for words. Nature 251: 704–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jurafsky, Daniel 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan and Girand, Cynthia. 2002. The role of the lemma in form variation. In Gussenhoven, C. and Warner, N. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology VII, 1–34. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle and Raymond, William. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 229–54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kay, Paul. 1977. Language evolution and speech style. In Blount, B. and Sanchez, M. (eds.), Sociocultural dimensions of language change, 21–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Variation in universal grammar. In Keenan, E., Fasold, R. and Shuy, R. (eds.), Analyzing variation in language, 136–48. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. and Harms, R.T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 171–204. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology yearbook 2: 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 640–70. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kirby, Simon. 2000. Syntax without natural selection: how compositionality emerges from vocabulary in a population of learners. In Knight, C., Hurford, J. & Kennedy, M. Studdert- (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language: social function and the origins of linguistic form, 303–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kirby, Simon. 2001. Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure: an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Journal of Evolutionary Computation 5(2):102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirby, Simon, and Christiansen, Morten. 2003. From language learning to language evolution. In Christiansen, M. and Kirby, S. (eds.), Language evolution, 279–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang, and Perdue, Clive. 1997. The basic variety (or: couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13(4): 301–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74: 303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kotovsky, Laura, and Gentner, Dedre. 1996. Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development 67: 2797–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, Anthony. 1989a. Function and grammar in the history of English: periphrastic do. In Fasold, R. W. and Schiffren, D. (eds.), Language change and variation, 134–69. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony. 1989b. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, Anthony, Myhill, John and Pintzuk, Susan. 1982. Understanding do. CLS18: 282–94. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Krott, Andrea, Baayen, Harald and Schreuder, R.. 2001. Analogy in morphology: modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39(1): 51–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: a cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 286–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lancelot, C. and Arnauld, A.. 1660. Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Pierre le Petit.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1978. The form and meaning of the English auxiliary. Language 54: 853–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites, Vol.I. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18: 141–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: a programmatic sketch, Vol. I. (Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48). Köln: Universität zu Köln. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. 1975. Word order and word order change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. 2002. Some issues concerning the origin of language. In Bybee, J. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 203–21. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Li, P., Elizabeth Bates and MacWhinney, Brian. 1993. Processing a language without inflections: a reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 169–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liberman, A. M., Safford Harris, K., Hoffman, H. and Griffith, B. C.. 1957. The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54: 358–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lichtenberk, Frantiek. 1991. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 37–80. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena, Pine, Julian M. and Baldwin, Gillian. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24: 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lin, Zi-Yu. 1991. The development of grammatical markers in Archaic Chinese and Han Chinese. Dissertation. SUNY, Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn, MacNeilage, Peter and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of language universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B. and Dahl, Ö. (eds.), Explanations for language universals, 181–203. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lord, Carol. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa. In Steever, S. B., Walker, C. A. and Mufwene, S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax, 179–91. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Losiewicz, Beth L. 1992. The effect of frequency on linguistic morphology. Dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, TX.Google Scholar

Luce, Paul, Pisoni, David, and Goldinger, Stephen. 1990. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In Altman, G.n (ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: psycholinguistic and computational perspectives, 122–47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

MacFarland, T., and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1991. On ich-Laut, ach-Laut and structure preservation. Phonology 8: 171–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 1978. The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 174(43).Google Scholar

Malt, B. C., and Smith, E. E.. 1984. Correlated properties in natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23: 250–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mańczak, Witold. 1980. Laws of analogy. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical morphology, 28388. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Marchese, Lynell. 1986. Tense/aspect and the development of auxiliaries in Kru languages. Arlington, VA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Marcos Marín, Francisco 1992. Corpus oral de referencia del español contemporáneo. Textual corpus, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar

Marcus, Gary F., Steven Pinker, M. Ullman, M. Hollander, Rosen, T. J. and Xu, F.. 1992. Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the society for research in child development 57(4): 1–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McClelland, James L., and Bybee, Joan. 2007. Gradience of gradience: a reply to Jackendoff. The Linguistic Review 24: 437–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McWhorter, John. 2001. Defining ‘creole’ as a synchronic term. In Neumann-Holzschuh, I. and Schneider, E. (eds.), Degrees of restructuring in creole languages, 85–124. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Medin, Douglas. L., and Schaffer, Marguerite M.. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85: 207–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di scienza) 6(12): 384–400.Google Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: an integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1): 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michaelis, Laura A. 2006. Tense in English. In Aarts, B. and MacMahon, A. (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 220–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Miller, Joanne. 1994. On the internal structure of phonetic categories: a progress report. Cognition 50: 271–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moonwomon, Birch. 1992. The mechanism of lexical diffusion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January, Philadelphia.

Morton, J. 1967. A singular lack of incidental learning. Nature 215: 203–04.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mossé, Fernand. 1952. A handbook of Middle English. Translated by Walker, James A.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Mossé, Fernand. 1968. Manual of Middle English. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Mowrey, Richard, and Pagliuca, William. 1995. The reductive character of articulatory evolution. Rivista di Linguistica 7(1): 37–124.Google Scholar

Munson, Benjamin, and Solomon, Nancy P.. 2004. The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47: 1048–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Murphy, G. L., and Shapiro, A. M.. 1994. Forgetting of verbatim information in discourse. Memory and Cognition 22: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nader, K., Schafe, G.E., and Doux, J.E.. 2000. Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdale for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature 406: 722–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nagle, Stephen J. 1989. Inferential change and syntactic modality in English. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Newell, Allen. 1990. Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Fritz J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: a generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 1998. Non-structuralist syntax. In Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M. and Wheatley, K. (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Vol. I, 11–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2001. Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. In Campbell, L. (ed.), Grammaticalization: a critical assessment. Special issue of Language Sciences23(2–3): 231–64.

Nosofsky, Robert M. 1988. Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, memory, and cognition 14: 54–65.Google Scholar

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

Ogura, M. 1993. The development of periphrastic do in English: a case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10(1): 51–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O'Neill, John 1999. Electronic Texts and Concordances of the Madison Corpus of Early Spanish Manuscripts and Printings, CD-ROM. Madison and New York; Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies.

Patterson, Janet L. 1992. The development of sociolinguistic phonological variation patterns for (ing) in young children. Dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew, and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W., Language and communication, 191–226. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Perkins, Revere. 1992. Deixis, grammar, and culture. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, Ann M. 1983. The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1994. Syllable structure and word structure: a study of triconsonantal clusters in English. In Keating, Patricia, ed., Phonological structure and phonetic form: papers in laboratory phonology III, 168–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 137–57. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. and Warner, N. (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2003. Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and speech 46(2–3): 115–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pine, Julian M., and Lieven, Elena. 1993. Reanalysing rote-learned phrases: individual differences in the transition to multiword speech. Journal of Child Language 20: 551–71.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253: 530–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 2003. The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven, and Bloom, Paul. 1990. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60: 320–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, Betty S. 2001. Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency, and lexical analysis. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 123–36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8(3): 305–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poplack, Shana. To appear. A variationist perspective on grammaticalization. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) Handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.

Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1996. Nothing in context: variation, grammaticization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English. In Baker, P. and Syea, A. (eds.), Changing meanings, changing functions: papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages, 71–94. London: University of Westminster.Google Scholar

Pountain, Christopher J. 1984. How ‘become’ became in Castilian. In Essays in honour of Robert Brian Tate from his colleagues and pupils, 101–11. University of Nottingham Monographs in the Humanities.

Prévost, P., and White, L.. 2000. Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition? Evidence from tense and agreement. Second language research 16(2): 103–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quirk, Randolf, Greenbaum, Sydney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and noun number in English: a functional explanation. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Reyna, V. F., and Kiernan, B.. 1994. The development of gist versus verbatim memory in sentence recognition: effects of lexical familiarity, semantic content, encoding instruction, and retention interval. Developmental Psychology 30: 178–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of the English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Ian, and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: a minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Julie. 1994. Acquisition of variable rules: (-t, d) deletion and (ing) production in preschool children. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Roberts, Julie. 1997. Acquisition of variable rules: a study of (-t, d) deletion in preschool children. Journal of Child Language 24: 351–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Sarah J., and Bresnan, Joan. 2008. Retained inflectional morphology in pidgins: a typological study. Linguistic Typology 12: 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. The grammaticalization of irrealis in Tok Pisin. In Bybee, J. and Fleischmann, S. (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 389–427. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor H. 1975. Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 573–605.Google Scholar

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

Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L., and the PDP research group. 1986. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vols. 1–2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sachs, Jacqueline S. 1967. Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics 2(9): 437–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, Gillian, and Hélène, Blondeau. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83: 560–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anna and Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6(5): 557–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno but … a usage-based account of the phonological reduction ofdon't. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne 2002. Point of view and grammar: structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwenter, Scott A. 1994. The grammaticalization of an anterior in progress: evidence from a Peninsular Spanish dialect. Studies in Language 18: 71–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seppänen, Aimo, Bowen, Rhonwen, and Trotta, Joe. 1994. On the so-called complex prepositions. Studia Anglia Posnaniensia 29: 3–29.Google Scholar

Sienicki, Ben. 2008. The dare and need constructions in English: a case of degrammaticization? Unpublished manuscript. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

Siewierska, Anna. 2002. Word order. In Smelser, N. and Baltes, P. (eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (16552–5). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and in history. In Macnamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought, 185–214. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1985. Cross-linguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition: theoretical perspectives, Vol.II, 1157–256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1994. Talking perfectly: discourse origins of the Present Perfect. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 119–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1996. From “thought” and “language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J.J. and Levinson, S.C. (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1997a. Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 437–67. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1997b. The origins of grammaticizable notions: beyond the individual mind. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition: expanding the contexts, Vol.V, 1–39. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 2003. Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in mind: advances in the investigation of language and thought, 157–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Smith, Geoff P. 2002. Growing up with Tok Pisin: contact, creolization, and change in Papua New Guinea's national language. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar

Smith, K. Aaron. 2001. The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 361–82. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steele, Susan. 1975. Past and irrealis: just what does it all mean? International Journal of American Linguistics 41: 200–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Gries, Stefan. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Studdert-Kennedy, , Michael, Alvin Liberman, Harris, Katherine and Cooper, Franklin. 1970. Motor theory of speech perception: a reply to Lane's critical review. Psychological Review 77: 234–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Taeymans, Martine. 2004. What the Helsinki Corpus tells us about DARE in late Middle English to Early Modern English. Paper presented at 13 ICEHL, University of Vienna, August.

Taeymans, Martine. 2006. An investigation into the emergence and development of the verb need from Old to Present-Day English: a corpus-based approach. Dissertation. University of Antwerp, Belgium.

Talmy, Leonard 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 2003. A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1): 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic categorization (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category “adjective”. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals, 167–85. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A. 1998. A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In Siewierska, A. and Song, J. J. (eds.), Case, typology and grammar, 309–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra, and Fox, Barbara. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66(2): 297–316.Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A., and Hopper, Paul J.. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: evidence from conversation. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Thurston, William R. 1989. How exoteric languages build a lexicon: esoterogeny in West New Britain. In Harlow, R. and Hooper, R. (eds.), VICAL 1: Oceanic languages, Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 555–79. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58: 832–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First verbs: a case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael, A. Kruger, and Ratner, H.. 1993. Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 495–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomlin, Russell S. 1986. Basic word order: functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 1999. Variation and grammaticization in progressives: Spanish -ndo constructions. Studies in Language 23(1): 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2000. Grammaticization, synchronic variation, and language contact: a study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2001. From lexical to grammatical to social meaning. Language in Society 30: 443–78.Google Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2006. Relative frequency in the grammaticization of collocations: nominal to concessive a pesar de. In Face, T. and Klee, C. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 37–49. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Schwenter, Scott. 2005. Towards an operational notion of subjectification. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31: 347–58.Google Scholar

Torres Cacoullos, Rena and Walker, James A.. 2009. The present of the English future: grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2) 321–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax, 439–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Trask, Robert. L. 2007. Historical linguistics (2nd edn.). Revised by Millar, Robert McColl. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2001. Legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality. Paper presented at Freiberg University, October.

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. and Janda, R. (eds.), A handbook of historical linguistics, 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.I, 189–218. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2001. Contact and simplification. Linguistic Typology 5: 371–74.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 1989. Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In Breivik, L. and Jahr, E. (eds.), Language change: contributions to the study of its causes, 227–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Linguistic and social typology. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 707–28. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bergem, Dick. 1995. Acoustic and lexical vowel reduction, Studies in language and language use, 16. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar

Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and times. In Vendler, Z. (ed.), Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Verhagen, Arie. 2002. From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 403–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Verhagen, Arie. 2006. English constructions from a Dutch perspective: where are the differences? In Hannay, M. and Steen, G. J. (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar, 257–74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Vihman, Marilyn. 1980. Sound change and child language. In Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Vitevitch, Michael S., Luce, Paul A., Charles-Luce, Jan and Kemmerer, David. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech, 40: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Warner, Anthony. 1983. Review article of Lightfoot 1979 (Principles of diachronic syntax). Journal of Linguistics 19: 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, Anthony. 2004. What drove ‘do’? In C. Kay, S. Horobin, and J. J. Smith, (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics: syntax and morphology, Vol.I, 229–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Watkins, Calvin. 1962. Indo-European origins of the Celtic verb I: the sigmatic aorist. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar

Waugh, Linda. 1975. A semantic analysis of the French tense system. Orbis 24: 436–85.Google Scholar

Wedel, Andrew B. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23(3): 247–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wedel, Andrew B. 2007. Feedback and regularity in the lexicon. Phonology 24: 147–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1941 [1956]. Language, mind, and reality. In Carroll, J. B. (ed.), Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, 134–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, Damián Vergara. 2009. From ‘remaining’ to ‘becoming’ in Spanish: the role of prefabs in the development of the construction quedar(se) + ADJECTIVE. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E., Ouali, H. and Wheatley, K. (eds.), Formulaic language, Vol.I, Typological studies in language, 273–96. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1953. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wray, Alison 2000. Holistic utterances in protolanguage: the link from primates to humans. In Knight, C., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Hurford, J., The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: social function and the origins of linguistic form, 285–302. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wray, Alison 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wray, Allison, and Grace, George W.. 2007. The consequences of talking to strangers: evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117: 543–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Grammaticalisation through constructions: the story of causative have in English. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2: 159–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: Englishn't. Language 59: 502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar