[Baker, Paul. 2009. Contemporary corpus linguistics. London: Continuum.]Search in Google Scholar
[Barlow, Michael. 2000. Corpus of spoken professional American English. CD-ROM version. Houston, TX: Athelstan.]Search in Google Scholar
[Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024]Search in Google Scholar
[Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Birner, Betty. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bresnan, Joan & Joni M. Kanerva. 1992. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. In Tim Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and semantics No. 26: Syntax and the lexicon, 53-101. New York: Academic Press,.10.1163/9789004373181_006]Search in Google Scholar
[Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615962]Search in Google Scholar
[Carroll, Mary & Christiane von Stutterheim. 2002. Typology and information organisation: Perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In Anna Giacalone Ramat (ed.), Typology and second language acquisition, 365-402. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110891249.365]Search in Google Scholar
[Chafe, Wallace. L. 1992. Information flow in speaking and writing. In Pamela Downing, Susan D. Lima, & Michael Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy, 17-29. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chen, Rong. 2003. English inversion: A ground-before-figure construction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895100]Search in Google Scholar
[Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864]Search in Google Scholar
[Dorgeloh, Heidrum. 1997. Inversion in Modern English: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.6]Search in Google Scholar
[Dubrig, Hans Bernhard. 1988. On the discourse function of subject-verb inversion. In Joseph Klegraf & Dietrich Nehls (eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday, 83-95. Heidelberg: Julius Gross Verlag.10.1515/east-1988-0111]Search in Google Scholar
[Fillmore, Charles. J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Andreas Kathol, Jean- Pierre Koenig & Gert Webelhuth (eds.), Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, 113-128. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501-538.10.2307/414531]Search in Google Scholar
[Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Goldberg, Adele. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Goldberg Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions.10.1353/lan.2004.0129]Search in Google Scholar
[Language 80. 532-568. 10.2307/329733]Search in Google Scholar
[Green, Georgia M. 1982. Colloquial and literary uses of inversion. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 119-154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.]Search in Google Scholar
[Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hartvigson, Hans & Leif K. Jakobsen. 1974. Inversion in Present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hofland, Knut, Anne Lindebjerg & Jørg Thunestvedt. 1999. ICAME collection of English language corpora. 2nd edition, CD-ROM version. Bergen: The HIT Centre.]Search in Google Scholar
[Huddleston, Ronald & Geoffrey K. Pullum 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530]Search in Google Scholar
[Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1-33.10.1353/lan.1999.0033]Search in Google Scholar
[Kreyer, Rolf. 2006. Inversion in modern written English: Syntactic complexity, information status and the creative writer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.10.1163/9789401204347_012]Search in Google Scholar
[Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology, 13-59. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803464.13]Search in Google Scholar
[Nelson, Gerald. 1988. The International Corpus of English. The British component. Survey of English Usage: University College London.]Search in Google Scholar
[Petré, Peter. 2010. The functions of weorðan and its loss in the past tense in Old and Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 14.3. 457-484.10.1017/S1360674310000158]Search in Google Scholar
[Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2008. The iconic function of full inversion in English. In Klaas Willems & Ludovic De Cuypere (eds.), Naturalness and iconicity in language, 149-166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.7.09pra]Search in Google Scholar
[Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2011. Full-verb inversion in written and spoken English. (Linguistics Insights Series: Studies in Language and Communication 127.) Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0252-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Prado-Alonso, Carlos & Juan Carlos Acuña-Fariña. 2010. A comprehensive account of full-verb inversion in English. Folia Linguistica 44.2. 509-553.10.1515/flin.2010.018]Search in Google Scholar
[Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rosch, Eleanor & Catlin B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structures of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573-605.10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9]Search in Google Scholar
[Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Schachter, Paul. 1992. Comments on Bresnan and Kanerva’s “Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar”. In Tim Stowell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and semantics No. 26: Syntax and the lexicon, 103-110. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373181_007]Search in Google Scholar
[Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Motivating non-canonicality in Construction Grammar: The case of locative inversion. Cognitive Linguistics 22.1. 81-105. 10.1515/cogl.2011.004]Search in Google Scholar
