Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-bzg56 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-10T14:29:14.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2025

Eva Berlage
Eva Berlage
Affiliation:
Universität Hamburg
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Composite Predicates in English
Processes of Specialization
 , pp. 203 - 215
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Akimoto, Minoji. 1989. A Study of Verbo-Nominal Structures in English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji and Brinton, Laurel J.. 1999. ‘The origin of the composite predicate in Old English.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algeo, John. 1995. ‘Having a look at the expanded predicate.’ In: Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 203–17.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan and Sells, Peter (eds.). 1997. Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Altmann, Gabriel, Beöthy, Erszébet and Best, Karl-Heinz. 1982. ‘Die Bedeutungskomplexität der Wörter und das Menzerathsche Gesetz.’ Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 35: 537–43.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald and Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín. 2005. ‘Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages.’ Language 81: 666–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Carl L. 1970. ‘Double negatives.’ Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–86.Google Scholar
Barnbrook, Geoff. 2007. ‘Sinclair on collocation.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2012. ‘The cohesiveness of English and German compounds.’ The Mental Lexicon 7: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2014a. ‘Boundary permeability: A parameter for linguistic typology.’ Linguistic Typology 18: 489–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2014b. ‘Competition as a unifying concept for the study of language.’ The Mental Lexicon 9: 338–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. In press. ‘Frequency, variation and iconicity.’ In: Fischer, Olga, Akita, Kimi and Perniss, Pamela (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Iconicity in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2010. ‘The lexicalisation of predicative complements in English.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 108: 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2012. ‘At the interface of grammaticalisation and lexicalisation: The case of take prisoner.’ English Language and Linguistics 16: 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2014. ‘Opposite developments in composite predicate constructions: The case of take advantage of and make use of.’ In: Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–23.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. ‘Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy.’ In: Aitchison, Jean and Lewis, Diana M. (eds.), New Media Language. London: Routledge. 169–81.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, with Egbert, Jesse, Gray, Bethany, Oppliger, Rahel and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. ‘Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns.’ In: Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 351–75.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boleda, Gemma. 2020. ‘Distributional semantics and linguistic theory.’ Annual Review of Linguistics 6: 213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boleda, Gemma and Herbelot, Aurélie. 2016. ‘Formal distributional semantics: Introduction to the Special Issue.’ Computational Linguistics 42: 619–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. ‘Entailment and the meaning of structures.’ Glossa 2: 119–27.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1897. Essai de Sémantique: Science des Significations. Paris: Librairie Hachette.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. ‘The passive in lexical theory.’ In: Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 3–86.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. ‘Attitudes towards increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 24: 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. ‘“Where grammar and lexis meet:” Composite predicates in English.’ In: Seoane, Elena and López-Couso, María José (eds.), Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji. 1999. ‘Introduction.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 2001. ‘Light verbs and polysemy.’ Language Sciences 23: 551–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2010. ‘The light verb jungle: Still hacking away.’ In: Amberber, Mengistu, Harvey, Mark and Baker, Brett (eds.), Complex Predicates in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 48–78.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam and Lahiri, Aditi. 2013. ‘Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs.’ Lingua 135: 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. ‘From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition.’ Language 82: 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul. 2001. ‘Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure.’ In: Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cambridge Dictionary Online. Available online at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, Devin M. 2005. ‘Homonyms and functional mappings in language acquisition.’ In: Tyler, Andrea, Takada, Mari, Kim, Yiyoung and Marinova, Diana (eds.), Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language and Language Learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 19–35.Google Scholar
Cattell, James M. 1886. ‘The time it takes to see and name objects.’ Mind 41: 63−5.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1984. Composite Predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemla, Emmanuel, Homer, Vincent and Rothschild, Daniel. 2011. ‘Modularity and intuitions in formal semantics: The case of polarity items.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 537–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1987. ‘The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition.’ MacWhinney, Brian (ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1–33.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy and De Clerck, Bernard. 2011. ‘Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction.’ Cognitive Linguistics 22: 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins Online Dictionary. Available online at www.collinsdictionary.com/.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Stathi, Katerina. 2016. ‘Grammaticalization and prosody: The case of English sort / kind / type of constructions.’ Language 92: 911–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S. and O’Seaghdha, Padraig G.. 1994. ‘Inhibition in interactive activation models of linguistic selection and sequencing.’ In: Dagenbach, Dale and Carr, Thomas H. (eds.), Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language. San Diego: Academic Press. 409–53.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2018. ‘The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system.’ English Language and Linguistics 22: 403–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, D’hoedt, Frauke, Fonteyn, Lauren and van Goethem, Kristel. 2018. ‘The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation.’ Cognitive Linguistics 29: 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1988. ‘Isomorfisme als Functioneel Verklaringsprincipe [Isomorphism as a Functional Explanatory Principle].’ GLOT 11: 87–106.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar and Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L.. 2015. ‘Frequency and entrenchment.’ In: Dabrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004. ‘Adjective classes in typological perspective.’ In: Dixon, Robert M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht, NL: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drieghe, Denis and Brysbaert, Marc. 2002. ‘Strategic effects in associative priming with words, homophones, and pseudohomophones.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28: 951–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Durkin, Philip. 2016. ‘Etymology, word history, and the grouping and division of material in historical dictionaries.’ In: Durkin, Philip (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 236–52.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerry A. 1981. ‘Affectivity and gradient scope.’ In: Hendrick, Roberta A., Masek, Carrie S. and Miller, Mary Frances (eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 38–44.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerry A. 1983. ‘Polarized auxiliaries.’ In: Heny, Frank and Richards, Barry (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol.1. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel. 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. ‘Polarity and the scale principle.’ In: Grossman, Robin E., James San, L. and Vance, Timothy J. (eds.), Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 188–99.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1979. ‘Implication reversal in a natural language.’ In: Guenthner, Franz and Schmidt, Siegfried J. (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel. 289–301.Google Scholar
Felleis, Katharina. 2018. German Loanwords in the English Language. Diploma Thesis. Vienna: Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. ‘A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–55.’ Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Special Volume of the Philological Society: 1–31.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2021. ‘Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: A corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in MOD + ADV collocations.’ English Language and Linguistics 25: 743–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2021a. ‘Light verb constructions and their families: A corpus study on German stehen unter-LVCs.’ In: Cook, Paul, Mitrović, Jelena, Escartín, Carla Parra et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on Multiword Expressions (MWE 2021). Online: Association for Computational Linguistics. 63–9.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens. 2021b. ‘Warum steht der Fußballspieler unter Vertrag? Eine Fallstudie zu Funktionsverbgefügen des Typs “stehen unter NP”.’ Sprachwissenschaft 46: 343–74.Google Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens and Hartmann, Stefan. 2021. ‘The emergence of light verb constructions: A case study on German kommen “come”.’ Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9: 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischhauer, Jens and Neisani, Mozhgan. 2020. ‘Adverbial and attributive modification of Persian separable light verb constructions.’ Journal of Linguistics 56: 45–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. and Yuasa, Etsuyo. 2008. ‘A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization.’ Journal of Linguistics 44: 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria, Rodman, Robert and Hyams, Nina. 2003. An Introduction to Language. 7th ed. Boston: Thomson.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2011. ‘Negative and positive polarity items.’ In: von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1660–712.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. ‘Serial verbs and the mental reality of “event”: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging.’ In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 81–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. ‘Collostructions.’ In: Robinson, Peter (ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge. 92–5.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2019. ‘15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures).’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24: 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiter, Henri. 1978. ‘Les relations /fréquence-longueur-sens/ des mots (langues romanes et anglais).’ In: Várvaro, Alberto (ed.), XIV Congresso Internazionale di Linguistica E Filologia Romanza, Napoli, 15–20 Aprile 1974. Amsterdam: Benjamins. IV-373–IV-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, Florian. 2007. ‘The development of English each other: Grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both?’ English Language and Linguistics 11: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. ‘The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation.’ Language 56: 515–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. ‘Iconic and economic motivation.’ Language 55: 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1954. ‘Distributional structure.’ Word 10: 146–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. ‘Why is grammaticalization irreversible?’ Linguistics 37: 1043–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. ‘Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries.’ Cognitive Linguistics 19: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2022. ‘Negindefinites and negative concord: Concepts, terms and analyses.’ Available online at https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006819.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2019. ‘Word-external properties in a typology of Modern English: A comparison with German.’ English Language and Linguistics 23: 701–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Antje. 2020. ‘Zwischen Grammatik und Lexikon: Ein Forschungsgeschichtlicher Blick auf Funktionsverbgefüge.’ In: De Knop, Sabine and Hermann, Manon (eds.), Funktionsverbgefüge im Fokus: Theoretische, Didaktische und Kontrastive Perspektiven. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 15–38.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. ‘Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in Early Modern English.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 133–65.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?’ In: Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora.’ English Language and Linguistics 11: 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. ‘Using the OED quotations database as a corpus: A linguistic appraisal.’ ICAME Journal 28: 17–30.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Hundt, Marianne and Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2011. ‘Indian English: An emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes.’ Anglia 129: 258–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hook, Peter E. 1991. ‘The emergence of perfective aspect in Indo-Aryan languages.’ In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.2, Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘On some principles of grammaticalization.’ In: Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol.1, Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1970. ‘Ain’t it hard (anymore).’ Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 318–27.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1976. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Bauer, Laurie et al. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 2001. ‘Composite predicates in Middle English with the verbs nimen and taken.’ Studia Neophilologica 73: 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. ‘Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 619–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2011. The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI: Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1966 [1917]. Negation in English and Other Languages. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2013. ‘Introduction.’ Lingua 135: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karkaletsou, Foteini and Alexiadou, Artemis. 2023. ‘Synthetic-analytic variation in the formation of Greek comparatives and relative superlatives.’ Journal of Greek Linguistics 23: 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. ‘Negation in English.’ In: Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 246–323.Google Scholar
Köhler, Reinhard. 1986. Zur Linguistischen Synergetik: Struktur und Dynamik der Lexik. Bochum, DE: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1999. ‘Collocational and idiomatic aspects of verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study of MAKE, HAVE, GIVE, TAKE, and DO.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 167–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. PhD dissertation. Austin: University of Texas. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1980. ‘On the notion affective in the analysis of negative-polarity items.’ Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 1–16.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William A. 1996. ‘Negation and polarity items.’ In: Lappin, Shalom (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 321–41.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. ‘New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization.’ In: Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–18.Google Scholar
Lei, Lei and Liu, Dilin. 2018. ‘The academic English collocation list: A corpus-driven study.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23: 216–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levickij, Viktor V., Kiiko, J. J. and Spolnicka, S. V.. 1996. ‘Quantitative analysis of verb polysemy in Modern German.’ Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 3: 132–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Live, Anna H. 1973. ‘The take-have phrasal in English.’ Linguistics 11: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, Georgije and Turvey, M. T.. 1994. ‘Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 1. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123: 107–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Lutzky, Ursula and Kehoe, Andrew. 2016. ‘“Your blog is (the) shit”: A corpus linguistic approach to the identification of swearing in computer mediated communication.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21: 165–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Dmitrii Yu. 2008. ‘Zipf’s law and avoidance of excessive synonymy.’ Cognitive Science 32: 1075−98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, William, Tyler, Lorraine Komisarjevsky, Waksler, Rachelle and Older, Lianne. 1994. ‘Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon.’ Psychological Review 101: 3−33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastrofini, Roberta. 2023. ‘When lightness meets lexical aspect: A corpus-based account of English light verb extensions.’ In: Pompei, Anna, Mereu, Lunella and Piunno, Valentina (eds.), Light Verb Constructions as Complex Verbs: Features, Typology and Function. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 201−18.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Meiko. 1999. ‘Composite predicates in Middle English.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Meiko. 2008. From Simple Verbs to Periphrastic Expressions: The Historical Development of Composite Predicates, Phrasal Verbs, and Related Constructions in English. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Mehl, Seth. 2017. ‘Light verb semantics in the International Corpus of English: Onomasiological variation, identity evidence and degrees of lightness.’ English Language and Linguistics 23: 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A. and Charles, Walter G.. 1991. ‘Contextual correlates of semantic similarity.’ Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2010. ‘Variation and change in English resultative constructions.’ Language Variation and Change 22: 397–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2014. ‘Apparently competing motivations in morphosyntactic variation.’ In: MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 209–28.Google Scholar
Monsell, Stephen. 1991. ‘The nature and locus of word frequency effects in reading.’ In: Besner, Derek and Humphreys, Glyn W. (eds.), Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 148–97.Google Scholar
Moralejo-Gárate, Teresa. 2003. Composite Predicates in Middle English. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Neubauer, Marion. 2024. English Nouns since 1150: A Typological Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, Gerhard. 1968. ‘Complex verbal structures in English.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 6: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. ‘Idioms.’ Language 70: 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OED online. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Payne, John, Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2010. ‘The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs.’ Word Structure 3: 31–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pechenick, Eitan Adam, Danforth, Christopher M. and Dodds, Peter Sheridan. 2015. ‘Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: Strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural and linguistic evolution.’ PLoS ONE 10: e0137041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penka, Doris and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2010. ‘Negation and polarity: An introduction.’ Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 771–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent and Hilpert, Martin. 2017. ‘A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22: 490–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English, Part II: The Parts of Speech, Section II, The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1972. ‘A note on aspect in English: The take a walk construction.’ In: Plötz, Senta (ed.), Transformationelle Analyse: Die Transformationstheorie von Zellig Harris und ihre Entwicklung. Frankfurt: Athenäum. 409–20.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Renský, Miroslav. 1964. ‘English verbo-nominal phrases: Some structural and stylistic aspects.’ Travaux Linguistique de Prague 1: 289–99.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. ‘Betrachtungen zum Auf- und Abstieg einiger präpositionaler Konstruktionen im Englischen.’ North-Western European Language Evolution 26: 67–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. ‘Aspects of grammatical iconicity in English.’ In: Müller, Wolfgang and Fischer, Olga (eds.), From Sign to Signing: Iconicity in Language and Literature 3. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 263–85.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2007. ‘Determinants of grammatical variation in English and the formation/confirmation of linguistic hypotheses by means of internet data.’ In: Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja and Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2012. ‘Britisches und amerikanisches Englisch: Eine Sprache, zwei Grammatiken?’ In: Anderwald, Lieselotte (ed.), Sprachmythen – Fiktion oder Wirklichkeit? Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 137–60.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2013. ‘Using the OED quotations database as a diachronic corpus.’ In: Krug, Manfred and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 136–57.Google Scholar
Ronan, Patricia. 2014. ‘Light-verb constructions in the history of English.’ In: Davidse, Kristin, Gentens, Caroline, Ghesquière, Lobke and Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.), Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronan, Patricia and Schneider, Gerold. 2015. ‘Determining light verb constructions in contemporary British and Irish English.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20: 326–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2019. ‘On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 23: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. In press. ‘Dative and genitive variability in the history of English.’ In: Beal, Joan (ed.), New Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 3, Change, Transmission and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1973. ‘A fake NP squish.’ In: Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W. (eds.), New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 96–140.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1995. ‘Defective noun phrases.’ In: Dainora, Audra, Hemphill, Rachel, Lukas, Barbara, Need, Barbara and Pargman, Sheri (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 398–440.Google Scholar
Sagi, Eyal, Kaufmann, Stefan and Clark, Brady. 2009. ‘Semantic density analysis: Comparing word meaning across time and phonetic space.’ In: Basili, Roberto and Pennacchiotti, Marco (eds.), Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Workshop on GEMS: Geometrical Models of Natural Language Semantics. Athens: Association for Computational Linguistics. 104–11.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. ‘Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels.’ In: Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 117–38.Google Scholar
Schneider, Ulrike. 2023. ‘I couldn’t help but wonder: Do modals and negation attract?’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory Ahead of print: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahrokny-Prehn, Arian and Höche, Silke. 2011. ‘Rising through the registers: A corpus-based account of the stylistic constraints on light verb constructions.’ Corpus 10: 239–57.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John M. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2021. Syntactic Change in Late Modern English: Studies on Colloquialization and Densification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sönning, Lukas and Krug, Manfred. 2022. ‘Comparing study designs and down-sampling strategies in corpus analysis: The importance of speaker metadata in the BNCs of 1994 and 2014.’ In: Schützler, Ole and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics: Comparative Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 127–60.Google Scholar
Sönning, Lukas and Schlüter, Julia. 2022. ‘Comparing standard reference corpora and Google Books Ngrams: Strengths, limitations and synergies in the contrastive study of Variable h- in British and American English.’ In: Schützler, Ole and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics: Comparative Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. ‘Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Gabriele. 1991. ‘The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern English.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1998. ‘German loanwords and cultural stereotypes.’ English Today 14: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, John D. 2020. ‘Productivity, richness, and diversity of light verb constructions in the history of American English.’ Journal of Historical Linguistics 10: 349–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundquist, John D. 2022. ‘An exemplar-based approach to composite predicates in the history of American English.’ English Language and Linguistics 26: 413–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. ‘Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 654–65.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. ‘The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts.’ In: Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David and Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Rosenbach, Anette, Bresnan, Joan and Wolk, Christoph. 2014. ‘Culturally conditioned language change? A multi-variate analysis of genitive constructions in ARCHER’. In: Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 133–52.Google Scholar
Tanabe, Harumi. 1999. ‘Composite predicates and phrasal verbs in The Paston Letters.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Těšitelová, Marie. 1992. Quantitative Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1999. ‘A historical overview of complex predicate types.’ In: Brinton, Laurel J. and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 239–60.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2014. ‘Contentful constructionalization.’ Journal of Historical Linguistics 4: 256–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. ‘Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English.’ In: Trousdale, Grame and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. ‘Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English.’ In: Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke and König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. ‘Multiple inheritance and constructional change.’ Studies in Language 37: 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turney, Peter and Pantel, Patrick. 2010. ‘From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics.’ Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37: 141–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton. 1997. Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vogt, Helmut. 2002. ‘Semantische Unterschiede zwischen komplexen Verbalfügungen vom Typ give/have/take a look und ihre einfachen Verbentsprechungen.’ In: Rapp, Reinhard (ed.), Sprachwissenschaft auf dem Weg in das Dritte Jahrtausend. Akten des 34. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Germersheim 1999. Bern: Lang. 237–44.Google Scholar
von Bergen, Anke and von Bergen, Karl. 1993. Negative Polarität im Englischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
von Schlegel, August Wilhelm. 1846. Oeuvres de M. Auguste-Guillaume de Schlegel, Écrites en Francais et Publiées par Édouard Böcking. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Weimann, Klaus. 1995. Einführung ins Altenglische. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. ‘Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat?’ Language 58: 753–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Bodo and Grice, Martine. 2021. ‘Independence and generalizability in linguistics.’ Linguistics 59: 1251–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenberg, Eva and Piñango, Maria M.. 2011. ‘Processing light verb constructions.’ The Mental Lexicon 6: 393–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change.’ Diachronica 30: 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2008. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2009. ‘Converging evidence from corpus and experimental data to capture idiomaticity.’ Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5: 131–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2017. ‘Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation.’ English Language and Linguistics 22: 149–75.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2022. ‘Competing constructions construct complementary niches: A diachronic view on the English dative alternation.’ Language Dynamics and Change 13: 34–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Zwarts, Frans. 1998. ‘Three types of polarity.’ In: Hamm, Fritz and Hinrichs, Erhard (eds.), Plurality and Quantification. Dordrecht: Springer. 177–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Eva Berlage, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Composite Predicates in English
  • Online publication: 09 May 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316659045.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Eva Berlage, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Composite Predicates in English
  • Online publication: 09 May 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316659045.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Eva Berlage, Universität Hamburg
  • Book: Composite Predicates in English
  • Online publication: 09 May 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316659045.011
Available formats
×