A construction grammar account of possessive constructions in Lancashire dialect: Some advantages and challenges

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 407-424

  Hollmann, Willem ^a,b   Siewierska, Anna ^a,b  

^a LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249142406     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1360674307002304     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Aston, G. & L. Burnard (1998). The BNC handbook: exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
2. Barlow, M. & S. Kemmer (eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
3. Bavin, E. (1996). Body parts in Acholi: alienable and inalienable distinctions and extended users. In Chappell, H. & W. McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 841-64.
4. Berkenfield, C. (2001). The role of frequency in the realization of English that. In Bybee, J. L. & P. J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 281-308.
5. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
6. Bybee, J. L. & J. Scheibman (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37: 575-96.
7. Chapman, S. & D. C. Derbyshire (1991). Paumari. In Derbyshire, D. C. & G. Pullum (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 161-351.
8. Chappell, H. & W. McGregor (eds.) (1996a). The grammar of inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
9. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman.
10. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Crowley, T. (1996). Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. In Chappell, H. & W. McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 383-164.
14. Davis, K. (2003). A grammar of the Hoava language, Western Solomons. Pacific Linguistics 535. Canberra: Australian National University.
15. Fidelholtz, J. L. (1975). Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. In Papers from the 11th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 200-14.
16. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Gries, S. Th. (2006). Some proposals towards more rigorous corpus linguistics. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54: 191-202.
18. Gries, S. Th., B. Hampe & D. Schönefeld (2005). Converging evidence: bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 635-76.
19. Gries, S. Th., B. Hampe & D. Schönefeld (to appear). Converging evidence II: more on the association of verbs and constructions. In Newman, J. & S. Rice (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
20. Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Haspelmath, M. (2005). Frequency vs iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Paper presented at the University of Jena. [Handout available: http://email.eva.mpg.de/haspelmt/Jena05.pdf, accessed 10 November 2006.]
22. Haspelmath, M. (2006a). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 1-46.
23. Haspelmath, M. (2006b). Explaining alienability contrasts in adnominal possession: economy vs. iconicity. Paper presented at the 2nd Conference on the Syntax of the World's Languages, Lancaster University. [Handout available: http://email.eva.mpg.de/haspelmt/2006swl.pdf, accessed 10 November 2006.]
24. Heine, B. (1997). Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: a new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
26. Hollmann, W. B. (2003). Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: a cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester.
27. Hollmann, W. B. & A. Siewierska (2006). Corpora and (the need for) other methods in a study of Lancashire dialect. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54: 203-16.
28. Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 96-105.
29. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd edition/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Jurafsky, D., A. Bell, E. Fosler-Lusier, C. Girana & W. Raymond (1998). Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of ICSLP 98: 3111-14.
31. Kortmann, B. (ed.) (2003). Dialectology meets typology: dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32. Kortmann, B., T. Herrmann, L. Pietsch & S. Wagner (eds.) (2005). A comparative grammar of British English dialects: agreement, gender, relative clauses. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
33. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34. Nichols, J. (1988). On alienable and inalienable possession. In Shipley, W. (ed.), In honor of Mary Haas: from the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 557-609.
35. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
36. Nikolaeva, I. & M. Tolskaya (2001). A grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
37. Oakes, M. P. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
38. Renouf, A. & J. Sinclair (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, K. & B. Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics. London and New York: Longman. 128-44.
39. Schuchardt, H. (1885). Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: R. Oppenheim.
40. Seiler, H. (1983). Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.
41. Siewierska, A. & W. B. Hollmann (2007). Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Hannay, M. & G. J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 83-102.
42. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries (2003). Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209-43.
44. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: computer assisted studies of language and institutions. Oxford: Blackwell.
45. Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
46. Ultan, R. (1978). Toward a typology of substantival possession. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 11-49.
47. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.