05012nam 2200673 450 991046006380332120200520144314.090-272-6972-6(CKB)3710000000229723(EBL)1779533(SSID)ssj0001332961(PQKBManifestationID)12596925(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001332961(PQKBWorkID)11396106(PQKB)10155516(MiAaPQ)EBC1779533(Au-PeEL)EBL1779533(CaPaEBR)ebr10927645(CaONFJC)MIL642267(OCoLC)890206378(EXLCZ)99371000000022972320140919h20142014 uy 0engur|n|---|||||txtccrGrammaticalization - theory and data /edited by Sylvie Hancil, University of Rouen ; Ekkehard König, Free University BerlinAmsterdam, Netherlands ;Philadelphia, Pennsylvania :John Benjamins Publishing Company,2014.©20141 online resource (301 p.)Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS)Description based upon print version of record.1-322-11016-6 90-272-5927-5 Includes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes.Grammaticalization - Theory and Data; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Acknowledgements ; Introduction; Part 1. General and theoretical issues; Part 2. Case studies; References; Acquisition-based and usage-based explanations of grammaticalisation; 1. Generative vs. functional approaches; 2. Integration: Performance and parametrisation; 3. Case examples; 3.1 Romance futures; 3.2 German perfect (cf. Öhl 2009a); 3.3 Remarks on the auxiliation of the copula; 4. Conclusion; References; Grammaticalization and explanation; 1. Introduction; 2. A background of consensus3. Arguments against the explanatory potential of grammaticalization4. In defense of the explanatory potential of grammaticalization; 5. Unidirectionality, the process question, and reductionism; Unidirectionality; Process vs. Processes; Reductionism; 6. Concluding remarks; References; The perfectivization of the English perfect; 1. Introduction; 2. The perfectivisation of the HAVE-perfect - prototypical grammaticalization?; 3. The changing perfect in English; a. HAVE-perfects with definite past time adverbials; b. Narrative HAVE-perfects4. An increase in HAVE-perfect with past time adverbials?5. Which English are we discussing?; 6. Conclusion; References; Explaining language structure; 1. Introduction; 2. Questions; 3. Reconstruction; 4. Conclusions; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations; References; Toward a constructional framework for research on language change; 1. Introduction; 2. The main features of the constructionalization model; 3. A constructional approach to grammaticalization; 4. A constructional approach to lexicalization; 5. Major similarities and differences between contentful and procedural constructionalization6. The value added of a constructional approachData Bases; References; Grammaticalization of Polish mental predicate prefixes; 1. Introduction; 2. Grammaticalization; 3. Prefix semantics and its contribution to the meaning of the mental verb; 4. Classification of prefixes into pure perfectivizers and lexical prefixes: A case study on the verb myśleć 'to think'; 5. Conclusions; References; More thoughts on the grammaticalization of personal pronouns; 1. Introduction; 2. Referential shifting from third to second person: Heine and Song (2010, 2011)Mulder and Thompson (2006, 2008) point out that the final hanging but ([X but]) developed from initial but (X [but Y]) through a sequence of formal reanalyses, and insightfully observe the functional and formal parallelism between the development of the hanging type of final but and the final particalization of the Japanese subordinator -kedo. The present article demonstrates that but (and and as well) can perform a terminal bracketing function and serve as functional subordinators in spoken American English, and that they behave like final particles when the sentences are truncated. Although Studies in language companion series.Grammar, Comparative and generalGrammaticalizationCase studiesLinguistic changeCase studiesComputational linguisticsElectronic books.Grammar, Comparative and generalGrammaticalizationLinguistic changeComputational linguistics.415Hancil SylvieKönig EkkehardMiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910460063803321Grammaticalization1383959UNINA