Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-9t7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-10T08:46:50.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Historical Syntax

from Part III - The Long View by Levels and Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2025

Laura Wright
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Raymond Hickey
Affiliation:
University of Limerick
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the developments in syntax in the history of English. There is a long–term typological drift, with the language moving from synthetic to analytic, with functions that were earlier expressed in the morphology increasingly coming to be expressed by free morphemes. The main word order developments are the loss of Object–Verb orders in Early Middle English, and the loss of V2/V3 word order in the fifteenth century, leading to strict SVO order in which information–structural status was mapped onto syntactic function, with subjects as the only unmarked way to express ‘given’ information and objects as the only unmarked way for ‘new’ information. A number of ‘escape hatches’ develop to compensate for the loss of options for the flow of information in the clause: word order alternations such as the dative alternation or the particle alternation in phrasal verbs, cross-linguistically rare passives, ‘stretched verb’ constructions and clefts.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Context, Contact and Development
, pp. 545 - 610
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

Aarts, Bas. 2012. The subjunctive conundrum. Folia Linguistica 46.1: 120.Google Scholar
Ackema, Peter and Schoorlemmer, Maaike. 2007. Middles. In Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 131203.Google Scholar
Alcorn, Rhona. 2013. Pronoun placement and pronoun case in Old English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 114.4: 455472.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case-Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780198240969.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2000. Obsolescence and sudden death in syntax: the decline of verb-final order in early Middle English. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard M. and McCully, B. C. (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 326.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 201223.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2008. Genitives in Early English: Typology and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216680.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 2016. The definite determiner in Early Middle English: what happened with þe? In Vikner, Sten, Jörgensen, Henrik and van Gelderen, Elly (eds.), Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us: Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Aarhus: Aarhus University, pp. 4382.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2022. Pronominally headed relative clauses in early English. English Language and Linguistics 26.1: 105132.10.1017/S136067432100006XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allerton, D. J. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10.4: 533581.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The historical development of the it-cleft. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bately, Janet M. (ed.). 1980. The Old English Orosius. The Early English Text Society, second series 6. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2012. Word order, information structure, and discourse relations. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 6686.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2014. Tracing the loss of boundedness in the history of English: the anaphoric status of initial prepositional phrases in Old English and Late Middle English. Anglia 132.3: 506535.10.1515/ang-2014-0056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2017. Old ‘truths’, new corpora: revisiting the word order of conjunct clauses in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21.1: 125.10.1017/S1360674315000465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Viktor. 2010. Differences in the use of deictic expressions in English and German texts. Linguistics 48.4: 13091342.10.1515/ling.2010.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethurum, Dorothy (ed.). 1957. The False Gods, in The Homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/actrade/9780198111016.book.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward, 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2013. Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic writing. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey and Wallis, Sean (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change in Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99132.10.1017/CBO9781139060998.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bies, Ann. 1996. Syntax and discourse factors in Early New High German: evidence for verb-final word order. MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty and Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information Status and Canonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty and Ward, Gregory. 2002. Information packaging. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13631447.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara. 2021. Changes in Argument Structure: The Transitivizing Reaction Object Construction. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2006. English adjectives of general comparison: lexical versus grammaticalized uses. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2012. Functional shifts and the development of English determiners. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 271300.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, Harald R.. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, pp. 6994.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways to Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316416013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnley, J. D. 1986. Curial prose in England. Speculum 61: 593614.10.2307/2851597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: consequences for the nature of constructions. In Bybee, Joan and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honour of Sandra A. Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 117.Google Scholar
Cigman, Gloria. (ed.). 1989. Lollard Sermons. Early English Text Society OS 294. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clemoes, Peter (ed.). 1997. Annunciation. In Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, First Series. Early English Text Society, second series 17. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 281289.Google Scholar
Clowes, William. 1970. Treatise for the artificiall cure of struma, London 1602 (The English Experience 238) (facsimile). Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum; New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2017. Pronominal anaphoric strategies in the West Saxon dialect of Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21.2: 381408.10.1017/S136067431700020XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, Fran. 1988. Heavy arguments in Old English. In John, M. Anderson and Macleod, Norman (eds.), Edinburgh Studies in the English Language, Vol. I. Edinburgh: John Donald, pp. 3389.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. J. (ed.). 1922. The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Ælfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament, and his Preface to Genesis. Edited from all existing mss. Early English Text Society 160. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 2011. The emergence of the definite article in English: a contact-induced change? In Sleeman, Petra and Perridon, Harry (eds.), The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175192.10.1075/la.171.13criCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 2015. The ‘indefinite article’ from cardinal to operator to expletive. In Gianollo, Chiara, Jäger, Agnes and Penka, Doris (eds.), Language Change at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 125151.10.1515/9783110352306.125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisma, Paola and Pintzuk, Susan. 2016. An from Old to Middle English. In Vikner, Sten, Jørgensen, Henrik and van Gelderen, Elly (eds.), Let Us Have Articles Betwixt Us: Papers in Historical and Comparative Linguistics in Honour of Johanna L. Wood. Aarhus: Aarhus University, pp. 161183.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2005. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282005.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert and De Smet, Hendrik. 2007. For … to-infinitives from Early to Late Modern English. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge L. and Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.), ‘Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed’: New Insights into Late Modern English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 77102.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, Breban, Tine and Van linden, An. 2008. Deictification: the development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 12.3: 253503.10.1017/S1360674308002724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Zoe. 2009. Introduction to Horse Nutrition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Bastiani, Chiara and Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2020. On the syntax of object pronouns in Old English and Early Middle English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.1: 43.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. Forthcoming. The system of clausal complementation. In Beal (ed.), NCHEL, Vol. III: Transmission, Change and Ideology.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2002. Particle Verbs in English: Syntax, Information Structure, and Intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1990. Auxiliary + Impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 9.1: 139166.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92329.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 279304.10.1002/9780470757048.ch12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David and Hundt, Marianne. 2013. Defining relatives. Journal of English Linguistics 41: 135167.10.1177/0075424213483572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse and Verhulst, An. 2008. Source of modality: a reassessment. English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 187210.10.1017/S1360674307002481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreschler, Gea. 2015. Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. J. 1994. Need and dare: the black sheep of the modal family. Lingua 94: 213243.10.1016/0024-3841(94)90010-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 2014. The present perfect and the preterite in Late Modern and Contemporary English: a longitudinal look. In Davidse, Kristin, Gentens, Caroline, Ghesquière, Lobke and Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.), Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81103.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1997. The for … to construction in English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fairman, Tony. 2000. English pauper letters 1800–34 and the English language. In Barton, David and Hall, Nigel (eds.), Letter Writing as a Social Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 6382.10.1075/swll.9.05faiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1992. Infinitive Complements in Shakespeare’s English. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (Servicio de Publicacións e Intercambio Científico).Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996. The gerund in Early Modern English: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 97152.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2019. A construction of independent means: the history of the Way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics 23.3: 671699.10.1017/S1360674318000059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and infinitive construction in Dutch and English compared. In Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre and Jansen, Olaf (eds.), Language Change and Language Structure: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91133.10.1515/9783110886573.91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1996. The status of to in Old English to-infinitives: a reply to Kageyama. Lingua 99: 107133.10.1016/0024-3841(96)00012-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem and van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Linguistics and literature: prospects and horizons in the study of prose. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 583611.10.1016/0378-2166(95)00062-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Gill and John, McH. Sinclair. 1994. I bet he drinks Carling Black Label: a riposte to Owen on corpus grammar. Applied Linguistics 15: 190200.10.1093/applin/15.2.190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2001. Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97141.10.1023/A:1011432819119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Godfrey, John J. and Holliman, Edward. 1993. Switchboard-1 Release 2 LDC97S62. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michelle and Michaelis, Laura A.. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: a functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 16651706.10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00063-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1: 97129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2002. Observations on the loss of Verb Second in the history of English. In Zwart, C. Jan Wouter and Abraham, Werner (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax: Proceedings from the Fifteenth Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245272.10.1075/la.53.15haeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2001. Literacy and linguistics: relationships between spoken and written language. In Burns, Anne and Coffin, Caroline (eds.), Analyzing English in a Global Context: A Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 181193.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. Vol. V: The Language of Science, ed. Webster, J.. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511676253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Härtl, Holden. 2003. Conceptual and grammatical characteristics of argument alternations: the case of decausative verbs. Linguistics 41.5: 883916.10.1515/ling.2003.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette di Paolo and Venezky, Richard L.. 1985. A Microfiche Concordance to Old English. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania and Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108982856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004446793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. Forthcoming. Construction Grammar and English historical linguistics. In Kytö and Smitterberg (eds.), NCHEL, Vol. II: Documentation, Sources of Data and Modelling.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2017. From OV to VO in English: how to Kroch the nut. In Los, Bettelou and de Haan, Pieter (eds.), Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in Honour of Ans van Kemenade. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 934.10.1075/la.243.02hinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland and Petrova, Svetlana. 2010. From V1 to V2 in West Germanic. Lingua 120: 315328.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4.4: 465497.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1971. The Sentence in Written English: A Syntactic Study Based on an Analysis of Scientific Texts. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Study of their Origin, Spread, and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401203784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2014. Books that sell – mediopassives and the modification ‘constraint’. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90110.10.1017/CBO9781139507226.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Gardner, Anne-Christine. 2017. Corpus-based approaches: watching English change. In Brinton, Laurel (ed.), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96130.10.1017/9781316286562.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, James. 1796. A Complete Dictionary of Farriery and Horsemanship Containing the Art of Farriery in all its Branches with an Explanation of the Terms, and a Description of the Various Particulars, Relating to the Manage, and to the Knowledge of Horses. Dublin: Printed for P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. Rice, and J. Moore. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CW0115430601/ECCO?sid=gale_marc&u=gentGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2000. Negation and OV order in Late Middle English. Journal of Linguistics 36: 1338.10.1017/S0022226799007963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Henry R. (trans.). 1897. The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1946. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in Language: With Special Reference to English. London: Swan.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 2006. Vocabulary. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 199270.10.1017/CBO9780511791154.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kehler, Laura Kertz, Rohde, Hannah and Elman, Jeffrey. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25: 144.10.1093/jos/ffm018CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilpiö, Matti. 1989. Passive Constructions in Old English Translations from Latin: With Special Reference to the OE Bede and the Pastoral Care. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 49. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Kirby, J. 1823. Farriery. In Maclaren, Charles (ed.), Encyclopaedia Britannica. Sixth edition. Edinburgh: A. Constable & Co.Google Scholar
Klaeber, F. 1941. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg: Edited, with introduction, bibliography, notes, glossary and appendices. Third edition with supplement. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Komen, Erwin. 2013. Finding Focus: A Study of the Historical Development of Focus in English. LOT Dissertations in Linguistics. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 2005. Transitional syntax: postverbal pronouns and particles in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 9.1: 4762.10.1017/S136067430500153XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1: 111136.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Language and Computers. Studies in Practical Linguistics 72. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042031449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline, Fanselow, Gisbert and Krifka, Manfred (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6; Working Papers of the Sonderforschungsbereich 632. Potsdam: Potsdam Universitätsverlag, pp. 1355.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1.3: 199244.10.1017/S0954394500000168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. and Taylor, Ann. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, Ans and Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297325.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. and Taylor, Ann. 2000. Verb-Object order in Early Middle English. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George and Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 132163.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S., Taylor, Ann and Ringe, Don. 2000. The Middle English verb-second constraint: a case study in language contact and language change. In Herring, Susan, van Reenen, Pieter and Schøsler, Lene (eds.), Textual Parameters in Older Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 353391.10.1075/cilt.195.17kroCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1997. BE/HAVE + past participle: the choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Topics in English Linguistics 23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1785.10.1515/9783110811148.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Sobin, Nicholas. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: on the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.2: 343371.10.1023/A:1006322600501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank R. (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 223240.10.1515/9783110895339.223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey and Li, Lu. 1995. Indeterminacy between noun phrases and adjective phrases as complements of the English verb. In Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183202.Google Scholar
Leighton-Hardman, A. C. 1977. A Guide to Feeding Horses and Ponies. London: Pelham.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110216066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49.2: 415443.10.1515/ling.2011.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1999. The Development of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2016. Corpora and online resources in English historical linguistics. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127145.10.1017/CBO9781139600231.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 1996. On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 411–122.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2012. The loss of Verb-Second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, María López-Couso, José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 2146.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2013. Recycling Junk: a case for exaptation as a response to breakdown. In Kikusawa, Ritsuko and Reid, Lawrence A. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 267288.10.1075/cilt.326.18losCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748694563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou and Coretta, Stefano. 2025. V2-relatives in Old English. In Demske, Ulrike and Bloom, Barthe (eds.), Discourse Structure and Narration: A Diachronic View from Germanic. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 307343.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou and Dreschler, Gea. 2012. The loss of local anchoring: from adverbial local anchors to permissive subjects. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), Rethinking Approaches to the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 859871.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou and van Kemenade, Ans. 2018. Syntax and the morphology of deixis: the loss of demonstratives and paratactic clause linking. In Coniglio, Marco, Murphy, Andrew, Schlachter, Eva and Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Atypical Demonstratives: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 127157.10.1515/9783110560299-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou, Dreschler, Gea, van Kemenade, Ans, Komen, Erwin and Coretta, Stefano. 2023. The decline of local anchors: a quantitative investigation. Linguistics and English Language 27.2: 345372.10.1017/S1360674323000047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou and Lubbers, Thijs. 2023. The development of prose style in English horse manuals: Interpreting stylometric findings. In Smet, Hendrik De, Heyvaert, Liesbeth, Petré, Peter and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds.), Grammaticalization and Variation in Honor of Hubert Cuyckens. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 275301.Google Scholar
Lubbers, Thijs. 2016. Towards profiles of periodic style: discourse organisation in modern English instructional writing. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lucas, P. J. 1983. John Capgrave’s Abbreuiacion of Cronicle, Early English Text Society 285. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Ian and van der Wurff, Wim. 2008. Relic syntax in Middle English and Medieval Spanish: parameter interaction in language change. Language 88.4: 846876.10.1353/lan.2012.0084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, Morgan. 2012. The perfect in Old English and Old Saxon: the synchronic and diachronic correspondence of form and meaning. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Macleod, Morgan. 2014. Synchronic variation in the Old English perfect. Transactions of the Philological Society 112.3: 319343.10.1111/1467-968X.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: a real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6.1: 105131.10.1017/S1360674302001065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, D. 1921. The Horse: In Health, Accident and Disease. Monograph. London: C. Arthur Pearson.Google Scholar
McColl Millar, Robert. 2000. System Collapse, System Rebirth: The Demonstrative Pronouns of English 900–1350 and the Birth of the Definite Article. Oxford: Lang.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce, Ball, Catherine and Cameron, Angus. 1975. Short titles of Old English texts. Anglo-Saxon England 4: 207221.10.1017/S0263675100002799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce, Ball, Catherine and Cameron, Angus. 1979. Addenda and corrigenda. Anglo-Saxon England 8: 331333.10.1017/S0263675100003124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1990. On the distribution of bare infinitive complements in English. Journal of Linguistics 26: 103131.10.1017/S0022226700014444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, Ayumi. 2016. Reassessing Latin influence on he/she this in Middle English. English Studies 97.4: 420441.10.1080/0013838X.2016.1138694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miura, Ayumi. Forthcoming. Internet resources for the history of English. In Beal (ed.), NCHEL, Vol. III: Transmission, Change and Ideology.Google Scholar
Moerenhout, Mike and van der Wurff, Wim. 2005. Object-verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: an exploratory study. English Language and Linguistics 9.1: 83114.10.1017/S1360674305001553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moerenhout, Mike and van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. Remnants of the old order: OV in the Paston Letters. English Studies 81: 513530.10.1076/enst.81.6.513.9184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2022. Should with non-past reference: a corpus-based diachronic study. In Los, Bettelou, Cowie, Claire, Honeybone, Patrick and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225242.10.1075/cilt.358.09moeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta and Eitelmann, Matthias. 2018. The role of cognate objects in language variation and change. In Finkbeiner, Rita and Freywald, Ulrike (eds.), Exact Repetition in Grammar and Discourse. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 200230.Google Scholar
Möhlig-Falke, Ruth. 2012. The Early English Impersonal Construction: An Analysis of Verbal and Constructional Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199777723.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2017. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, Second edition. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nichols, Gough, John (ed.). 1859. The Autobiography of Thomas Mowntayne. Narratives of the Days of the Reformation, Chiefly from the Manuscripts of John Foxe the Martyrologist; With Two Contemporary Biographies of Archbishop Cranmer. Camden Society, 77. London: [no publisher]. Repr. New York and London: AMS Press.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. Third Online Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogawa, Hiroshi. 1989. Old English Modal Verbs: A Syntactical Study. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 2001. Perceptual factors and word order change in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 22.1–2: 233253.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 2004. Evolution of word order. Folia Linguistica Historica 25.1–2: 2139.Google Scholar
Ohkado, Masayuki. 2004. Coordinate clauses in Old English with special reference to Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies. Folia Linguistica Historica 25.1–2: 155176.Google Scholar
Olofsson, Arne. 1990. A participle caught in the act: on the prepositional use of following. Studia Neophilologica 62: 2335, 129–149.10.1080/00393279008588037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2010. Cleft sentences, Construction Grammar and grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Pérez Lorido, Rodrigo. 2022. The role of the avoidance of centre embedding in the change from OV to VO in English. In Los, Bettelou, Cowie, Claire, Honeybone, Patrick and Graeme Trousdale (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137161.10.1075/cilt.358.06lorCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 2005. Word order after the loss of the verb-second constraint or the importance of early Modern English in the fixation of syntactic and informative un-markedness. English Studies 86: 342369.10.1080/00138380500164083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2010. On the interaction between constructional and lexical change: copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. Forthcoming. Development in the passive construction. In Beal (ed.), NCEL, Vol. III: Transmission, Change and Ideology.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 2002. Verb-object order in Old English: variation as grammatical competition. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 276300.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan and Taylor, Ann. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 249278.10.1002/9780470757048.ch11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan and Haeberli, Eric. 2008. Structural variation in Old English root clauses. Language Variation and Change 20: 367407.10.1017/S095439450800015XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, Charles (ed.). 1952 [1892–1899]. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pope, John C. (ed.). 1967. Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection. 2 vols. Early English Text Society 259 and 260. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pratt, Lynda and Denison, David. 2000. The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle. Language Sciences 22: 401422.10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00013-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R., Wasow, Thomas A., Mendoza-Denton, Norma and Espinoza, Juli. 1995. Syntactic variation and change in progress: loss of the verbal coda in topic restricting as far as constructions. Language 71: 102131.10.2307/415964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1967. The Uses of ‘One’ in Old and Early Middle English. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 31. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999a. Isn’t it? or Is it not? On the order of postverbal subject and negative particle in the history of English. In van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon, Tottie, Gunnel and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189205.10.1515/9783110806052.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999b. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187331.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1993. A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219258.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 1995. Object movement and verb movement in Early Modern English. In Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 269284.10.1007/978-94-015-8416-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günther. 1974. Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. PAKS-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 8. Bielefeld: Cornelson-Velhagen and Klasing.Google Scholar
Russom, J. H. 1983. An examination of the evidence for OE indirect passives. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 677680.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats and Brorström, Sverker. 1987. The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English, with Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis 70. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Sapp, Christopher D. 2014. Extraposition in Middle and New High German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 129156.10.1007/s10828-014-9066-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, Kiriko. 2012. Ælfric’s linguistic and stylistic alterations in his adaptations from the Old English Boethius. Neophilologus 96: 631640.10.1007/s11061-011-9290-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlachter, Eva. 2012. Syntax und Informationsstruktur im Althochdeutschen: Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Isidor-Gruppe. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold. 2022. Syntactic changes in verbal clauses and noun phrases from 1500 onwards. In Los, Bettelou, Cowie, Claire, Honeybone, Patrick and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163199.10.1075/cilt.358.07schCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2006. Information structure and word order change: the passive as an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 360391.10.1002/9780470757048.ch15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2013. On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14.1: 7099.10.1075/jhp.14.1.03seoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.) 1881–1900. Ælfric’s Lives of Saints. 4 vols. Early English Text Society. London: N. Trübner.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew D. M. Forthcoming. Grammaticalisation. In Kytö and Smitterberg (eds.), NCHEL, Vol. II: Documentation, Sources of Data and Modelling.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2018. Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110541052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76: 859890.10.2307/417202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speed, Adolphus. 1697. The Gentleman’s Compleat Jockey; With the Perfect Horseman, and Experienc’d Farrier. Formerly attributed to Adolphus Speed. EEBO. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebogroup/.Google Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2005. A prosodic factor for the decline of topicalisation in English. In Kepser, Stephan and Reis, Marga (eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 485506.10.1515/9783110197549.485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1977. Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. In Li, Charles (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 291314.10.7560/750357-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Struik, Tara and van Kemenade, Ans. 2020. On the givenness of OV word order: a re-examination of OV/VO variation in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 24.1: 122.10.1017/S1360674318000187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical And Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Changing conventions of writing: the dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions. European Journal of English Studies 5.2: 139150.10.1076/ejes.5.2.139.7309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann and Pintzuk, Susan. 2012. The effect of information structure on object position in Old English: A pilot study. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 4765.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230594654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 3155.10.2307/414841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Old English syntax. In Hogg, Richard M. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 168289.10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truswell, Robert, Alcorn, Rhona, Donaldson, James and Wallenberg, Joel. 2019. A parsed Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English. In Alcorn, Rhona, Kopaczyk, Joanna, Los, Bettelou and Molineaux, Benjamin (eds.), Historical Dialectology in the Digital Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 1938.10.3366/edinburgh/9781474430531.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Bergen, Linda D. 2013. Early progressive passives. Folia Linguistica Historica 34: 173207.Google Scholar
van Bergen, Linda D. 2015. Pronouns and Word Order in Old English: With Particular Reference to the Indefinite Pronoun Man. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315686974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim. 1999. Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: a word order parallel and its causes. Lingua 109: 237265.10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00026-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1.1: 106143.10.1075/jhl.1.1.05vanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht.: Foris.10.1515/9783110882308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 1993. The history of English modals: a reanalysis. Folia Linguistica Historica 13.1–2: 143166.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 2000. Jespersen’s Cycle revisited: formal properties of grammaticalization. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George and Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 5174.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans and Westergaard, Marit. 2012. Syntax and information structure: verb-second variation in Middle English. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 87118.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, Turo. 2012. The proximal and distal perspectives in relation to the position of directional modifiers in the English noun phrase. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, María López-Couso, José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 301329.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhulst, An, Depraetere, Ilse and Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2013. Source and strength of modality: an empirical study of root should, ought to and be supposed to in Present-Day British English. Journal of Pragmatics 55: 210225.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinaver, Eugène. 1954. The Works of Thomas Malory. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006. Die große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 2004. What drove do? In Kay, Christian J., Horobin, Simon and Jeremy, J. Smith (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics I: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229242.10.1075/cilt.251.14warCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 2006. Variation and the interpretation of change in periphrastic do. In Ans van Kemenade, , and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 4567.10.1002/9780470757048.ch3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 2007. Parameters of variation between verb-subject and subject-verb order in Late Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 11: 81111.10.1017/S1360674306002127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2004. The have-perfect in Old English. In Kay, Christian J., Horobin, Simon and Jeremy, J. Smith (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243255.10.1075/cilt.251.15wisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1958 [1910]. Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva Maria. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110633856CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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.

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.

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.

Available formats
×