Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
Part II - Tracking Change in the History of English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2025
Edited by
Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Cambridge History of the English LanguageTransmission, Change and Ideology, pp. 167 - 628Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
References
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco and Rodríguez-Álvarez, Alicia. 2003. Changes in regional scribal practice: degrees of standardization in fifteenth-century English legal copies from the county of Durham. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 46: 67‒84.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita. 2018. Urban literacies and processes of supralocalisation: a historical sociolinguistic perspective. In Braber, Natalie and Jansen, Sandra (eds.), Sociolinguistics in England. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 13–34.10.1057/978-1-137-56288-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita. 2019. Die Stadtsprache Yorks im späten Mittelalter. Ein Baustein zu einer alternativen Standardisierungsgeschichte des Englischen. In Pickl, Simon and Elspaß, Stephan (eds.), Historische Soziolinguistik der Stadtsprachen. Kontakt – Variation – Wandel. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2016. Standardization. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301–317.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13.2: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benskin, Michael. 1982. The letters <þ> and <y> in later Middle English, and some related matters. Journal of the Society of Archivists 7.1: 13–30.Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael. 1991. The fit-technique explained. In Riddy, Felicity (ed.), Regionalism in Late Medieval Manuscripts and Texts. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael. 1992. Some new perspectives on the origins of standard written English. In van Leuvensteijn, J. A. and Bern, J. B. (eds.), Dialect and Standard Language / Dialekt und Standardsprache in the English, Dutch, German and Norwegian Language Areas. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 71–105.Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael. 2004. Chancery standard. In Kay, Christian J., Hough, Carole A. and Wotherspoon, Irené (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Selected Papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow 21–26 August 2002. Volume III: Lexis and Transmission. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Bergstrøm, Geir. 2020. Cambridge: a university town. In Stenroos, and Thengs, (eds.), pp. 129–154.Google Scholar
Blake, Norman (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Norman. 1997. Chancery English and the Wife of Bath’s Prologue. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel and Bergs, Alexander (eds.). 2017. The History of English: Middle English. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Christine (ed.). 1996. Kingsford’s Stonor Letters and Papers, 1290–1483. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carrillo-Linares, María José and Williamson, Keith. 2020. The linguistic character of manuscripts attributed to the Beryn Scribe: a comparative study. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 87‒139.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo. 2016. A ‘third-wave’ historical sociolinguistic approach to late Middle English correspondence: evidence from the Stonor Letters. In Russi, Cinzia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter Open, pp. 46‒66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo. 2019. Spelling focusing and proto-standardisation in a fifteenth-century English community of practice. Studia Neophilologica 91.1: 11‒30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo. 2020. Communities of practice, proto-standardisation and spelling focusing in the Stonor Letters. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 443‒466.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo and Hernández-Campoy, Juan M.. 2004. A sociolinguistic approach to the diffusion of Chancery written practices in late fifteenth century private correspondence. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 105: 133–152.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo and Hernández-Campoy, Juan M.. 2013. Tracing the generational progress of language change in fifteenth-century English: The digraph <th> in the Paston Letters. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 114.3: 279–299.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 2003. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Norman O. (ed.). 1971–1976. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Deumert, Ana. 2004. Language Standardization and Language Change: The Dynamics of Cape Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim. 2003. Standard languages: taxonomies and histories. In Deumert, and Vandenbussche, (eds.), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.). 2003. Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, Gwilym. 2011. The spread of English in the records of central government, 1400–1430. Speculum 86: 117–146.10.1017/S0038713410003507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, Gwilym. 2012. Trilingualism in the Medieval English bureaucracy: the use ‒ and disuse ‒ of languages in the fifteenth-century Privy Seal office. The Journal of British Studies 51: 253‒283.10.1086/663979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Cuesta, Julia. 2014. The voice of the dead: analyzing sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English wills and testaments. Journal of English Linguistics 42.4: 330–358.Google Scholar
Fisher, John H. 1977. Chancery and the emergence of standard written English. Speculum 52: 870–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, John H. 1996. The Emergence of Standard English. Knoxville, TN: The University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Moragh Sanne. 2017. The Urban Vernacular of Late Medieval and Renaissance Bristol. Utrecht: LOT-Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.Google Scholar
Gordon, Moragh Sanne, Oudesluijs, Tino and Auer, Anita. 2020. Supralocalisation processes in early Modern urban vernaculars: new manuscript evidence from Bristol, Coventry and York. International Journal of English Studies 20.2: 47–66.10.6018/ijes.385171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Dialect, language and nation. American Anthropologist 68.4: 922–935.10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. 2016. Sociolinguistic Styles. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Camilo Conde-Silvestre, J.. 1999. The social diffusion of linguistic innovations in fifteenth century England: Chancery spellings in private correspondence. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 8: 251–274.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and García-Vidal, Tamara. 2018. Style-shifting and accommodative competence in Late Middle English written correspondence: putting audience design to the test of time. Folia Linguistica Historica 39.2: 383–420.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In Richard, M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–166.10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 2016 [2000]. The standardization of English. Linguistic Resources for Teachers. The Linguistic Association of Great Britain Education Committee https://lagb-education.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SEhogg.pdf.Google Scholar
Hope, Jonathan. 2000. Rats, bats, sparrows and dogs: biology, linguistics and the nature of standard English. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 49‒56.10.1017/CBO9780511551758.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John Earl. 1987. Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas (eds.). 2013. Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean and Wenger, Étienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leith, Dick. 1997 [1983]. A Social History of English. Second edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Le Page, Robert and Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Machan, Tim William. 2003. English in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Machan, Tim William. 2016. Snakes, ladders, and standard language. In Machan, Tim William (ed.), Imagining Medieval English: Language Structures and Theories, 500–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–77.10.1017/CBO9781107415836.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael L. and Benskin, Michael with the assistance of Margaret Laing and Keith Williamson. 1986. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval England. 4 vols. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. www.amc.lel.ed.ac.uk/amc-projects-hub/project/elalme/.Google Scholar
MELD = A Corpus of Middle English Local Documents, version 2017.1. December 2020. Compiled by Merja Stenroos, Kjetil V. Thengs and Geir Bergstrøm. University of Stavanger. www.uis.no/en/meld-corpus-files.Google Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21.2: 339–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Leslie. 2012 [1985]. Authority in Language. Investigating Standard English. Third edition. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203124666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Leslie. 1987 [1980]. Language and Social Networks. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2019. Communities of practice and incipient standardization in Middle English written culture. English Studies 100.2: 117‒132.10.1080/0013838X.2019.1566848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno-Olalla, David. 2020. Spelling practices in late Middle English medical prose: a quantitative analysis. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 141‒163.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. Processes of supralocalisation and the rise of Standard English in the Early Modern period. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard M. and McCully, Chris B. (eds.), Generative Theory and Corpus Studies. A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 329‒371.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2003. English. In Deumert, and Vandenbussche, (eds.), pp. 127–156.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2012. Variable focusing in English spelling between 1400 and 1600. In Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 127–165.10.1515/9783110288179.127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1989. A corpus of Early Modern Standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 90.1: 61–104.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2006. Standardisation. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–311.10.1017/CBO9780511791154.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, Elizabeth. 2009. The World of the Stonors: A Gentry Society. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.10.1515/9781846157790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormrod, W. Mark. 2003. The use of English: language, law and political culture in fourteenth-century England. Speculum 78: 750‒787.10.1017/S0038713400131537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudesluijs, Tino and Auer, Anita. 2019. Geographical variation in late medieval administrative documents: evidence from York and Coventry. In Stenroos, Merja, Mäkinen, Martti, Thengs, Kjetil and Traxel, Oliver (eds.), Current Explorations in Middle English: Selected Papers from the Tenth International Conference on Middle English (ICOME). Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 111–133.Google Scholar
Peikola, Matti. 2003. The Wycliffite Bible and the ‘Central Midland Standard’: assessing the manuscript evidence. Nordic Journal of English Studies 2: 29–51.10.35360/njes.126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Malcolm. 1980. Henry V, the English Chancery and Chancery English. Speculum 55: 726–750.10.2307/2847663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Language of law and the development of standard English. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Melchers, Gunnel and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Writing in Non-Standard English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–203.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 2000. Standardisation and the language of early statutes. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 117‒130.Google Scholar
Rothwell, William. 2001. English and French in England after 1362. English Studies 82: 539‒559.Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael. 1989 [1963]. Some applications of Middle English dialectology. In Laing, Margaret (ed.), Middle English Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, pp. 64–80.Google Scholar
Schaefer, Ursula. 2017. Middle English: standardisation. In Brinton, and Bergs, (eds.), pp. 205–222.Google Scholar
Scragg, Donald G. 1974. A History of English Spelling. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 1992. The use of English: language contact, dialect variation, and written standardization during the Middle English period. In Machan, Tim William and Scott, Charles T. (eds.), English in Its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 47–68.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2000. Standard language in Early Middle English? In Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu, Pahta, Päivi and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Placing Middle English in Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 125–139.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2020. On scriptae: correlating spelling and script in late Middle English. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 80: 13–27.10.25145/j.recaesin.2020.80.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenroos, Merja. 2004. Regional dialects and spelling conventions in late Middle English: searches for (th) in the LALME data. In Dossena, Marina and Lass, Roger (eds), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 257–285.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja. 2006. A Middle English mess of fricative spellings: reflections on thorn, yogh and their rivals. In Krygier, Marcin and Sikorska, Liliana (eds.), To Make His Englissh Sweete Upon His Tonge. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja. 2020a. The ‘vernacularisation’ and ‘standardisation’ of local administrative writing in late and post-medieval England. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 39–85.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja. 2020b. Regional variation and supralocalisation in late medieval English: comparing administrative and literary texts. In Stenroos, and Thengs, (eds.), pp. 98–128.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja, Bergstrøm, Geir and Thengs, Kjetil V.. 2020. The categorization of Middle English documents: interactions of function, form and language. In Stenroos, and Thengs, (eds.), pp. 37–67.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja and Schipor, Delia. 2020. Multilingual practices in Middle English documents. In Stenroos, and Thengs, (eds.), pp. 249–277.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja and Thengs, Kjetil V.. 2020. Local documents as source material for the study of late medieval English. In Stenroos, and Thengs, (eds.), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja and Thengs, Kjetil V. (eds.). 2020. Records of Real People: Linguistic Variation in Middle English Local Documents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2000. Scientific language and spelling standardisation. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 131–154.Google Scholar
Takeda, Reiko. 2002. A study of dialect levelling in some fifteenth-century Yorkshire documents. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 9: 141–157.Google Scholar
Thaisen, Jacob. 2020. Standardisation, exemplars and the Auchinleck manuscript. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 165–190.Google Scholar
Thengs, Kjetil V. 2020. Knutsford and Nantwich: scribal variation in late medieval Cheshire. In Stenroos, and Thengs, (eds.), pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1988. On the role of dialect contact and interdialect in linguistic change. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Dialectology: Regional and Social. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 547‒563.Google Scholar
Wenger, Étienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura. 1994a. On the writing of the history of standard English. In Fernández, Francisco, Fuster, Miguel and Calvo, Juan José (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105‒115.10.1075/cilt.113.12wriCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura. 1994b. Early Modern London business English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 449‒465.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 1996. About the evolution of standard English. In Elizabeth, M. Tyler and Toswell, M. Jane (eds.), Studies in English Language and Literature: ‘Doubt Wisely’ Papers in Honour of E.G. Stanley. London: Routledge, pp. 99–115.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2000b. Bills, accounts, inventories: everyday trilingual activities in the business world of later medieval England. In David, A. Trotter (ed.), Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, pp. 149‒156.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura (ed.). 2000. The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2005. Medieval mixed-language business texts and the rise of standard English. In Skaffari, Janne, Peikola, Matti, Carroll, Ruth, Hiltunen, Risto and Wårvik, Brita (eds.), Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 381‒399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2013. The contact origins of Standard English. In Schreier, Daniel and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 58‒74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2017. A multilingual approach to the history of Standard English. In Skaffari, Päivi Pahta Janne and Wright, Laura (eds.), Multilingual Practices in Language History. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 339‒358.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2020b. A critical look at previous accounts of the standardisation of English. In Wright, (ed.), pp. 17–38.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura (ed.). 2020. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wright, Laura. 2023. How multilingualism came to be ignored in the history of Standard English. In Aneta Pavlenko (ed.), Multilingualism and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1071–1022.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, John M. 2002. Introduction to Dependency Phonology. Paper read at the Kamara Symposium. https://tinyurl.com/4a79b6pk.Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the English Language. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research 1989: 69–101.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research 1992: 23–42.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan (ed.). 2008. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Díaz Vera, Javier E. 2008. How the phoneme inventory changes its shape: a cognitive approach to phonological evolution and change. Miscelánea 37: 11–22.Google Scholar
Dobson, Erik J. 1968. English Pronunciation 1500–1700. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Eliasson, Stig. 2010. Kedjeförskjutningen av långa bakre vokaler och svenskans «tionde» vokal. [The chain shift of long back vowels and the ‘tenth’ vowel in Swedish] Studier i svenska språkets historia 11: 127–136.Google Scholar
Frankis, John. 1988. The Great Vowel-Shift and other vowel-shifts. In Nixon, Graham and Honey, John (eds.), An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, pp. 133–137.Google Scholar
Fulcrand, Julien. 2015. A reanalysis of the great English vowel shift under contrast preservation theory. Linguistic Research 32.3: 533–571.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen and Vrba, Elisabeth S.. 1982. Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8.1: 4–15.10.1017/S0094837300004310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kaźmierski, Kamil. 2015. Exaptation and phonological change. Folia Linguistica Historica 36: 199–217.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. n.d. Generative Phonology. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/kenstowicz/generative_phonology.pdf.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo: TEC, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kökeritz, Helge. 1954. A Guide to Chaucer’s Pronunciation. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Yaeger, Malcah and Steiner, Richard. 1972. A Quantitative Study of Sound Change in Progress. Philadelphia: US Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret. 2008. A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English. Compiled by Margaret Laing with accompanying software by Keith Williamson. University of Edinburgh. www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme2.html.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1976. English Phonology and Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1988. Vowel shifts, great and otherwise: remarks on Stockwell and Minkova. In Kastovsky, Dieter and Bauer, Gero (eds.), Luick Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 395–410.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990a. What, if anything, was the Great Vowel Shift? Paper read at the Sixth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, pp. 144–155.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990b. How to do things with junk: exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26.1: 79–102.10.1017/S0022226700014432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. The Early Modern English short vowels noch einmal, again. Diachronica IX.1: 1–11.10.1075/dia.9.1.02lasCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1993. Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan and Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Language 48.4: 839–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2011. Chain shifts. In Marc van, Oostendorp et al. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. III. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1717–1735.Google Scholar
Luick, Karl. 1914–1940. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache [Historical Grammar of the English language], Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques: traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern: A. Francke.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael and Benskin, Michael. 1986. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. 4 vols. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April. 2007. Who’s afraid of the vowel shift rule? Language Sciences 29: 341–359.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 2014. A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Nathan, Geoffrey S. 1996. Steps toward a cognitive phonology. In Hurch, Bernhard and Rhodes, Richard (eds.), Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 107–120.Google Scholar
Navasivayam, Aravind K., Coleman, Deirdre, O’Dwyer, Aisling and van Lieshout, Pascal. 2020. Speech sound disorders in children: an articulatory phonology perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02998.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1974. Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, John and Jones, Charles (eds.), Historical Linguistics II: Theory and Description in Phonology. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 353–389.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold. 1933. The Phonology of a South Durham Dialect. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Pelt, J. 1980. Vowel shift and open syllable lengthening: a length conspiracy in Dutch. In John, M. Anderson and Colin, J. Ewen (eds.), Studies in Dependency Phonology. Ludwigsburg: R. O. U. Strauch, pp. 61–101.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1969 [1957]. The evidence for phonemic changes. In Lass, Roger (ed.), Approaches to English Historical Linguistics: An Anthology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 10–24.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report 2.Google Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus. 1994. Quantity Adjustment. Vowel Lengthening and Shortening in Early Middle English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saltzman, Elliot L. and Munhall, Kevin G.. 1989. A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research 1989: 38–68.Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution with Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139086707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1984. The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 129–155.10.1017/S0952675700000324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1995. Diphthongization in particle phonology. In John, A. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp. 586–608.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 1993. Dialectal variation in Middle English and the actuation of the Great Vowel Shift. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen XCIV.3–4: 259–277.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stenbrenden, Gjertrud F. 2016. Long-Vowel Shifts in English, c. 1050–1700: Evidence from Spelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107295469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenbrenden, Gjertrud F. 2022. Grimm’s Law and Verner’s Law: towards a unified phonetic account. In Los, Bettelou et al. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–40.10.1075/cilt.358.01steCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1960. The Middle English ‘long close’ and ‘long open’ mid vowels. University of Texas Studies in Literature and Language 2.4: 529–538.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1964. On the utility of an overall pattern in historical English phonology. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 663–671.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1972. Problems in the interpretation of the great English vowel shift’ In Smith, M. E. (ed.), Studies in Linguistics in Honor of George L. Trager. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 344–362.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1978. Perseverance in the English vowel shift. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 337–348.10.1515/9783110810929.337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Minkova, Donka. 1988a. The English vowel shift: problems of coherence and explanation. In Kastovsky, Dieter and Bauer, Gero (eds.), Luick Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 355–394.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Minkova, Donka. 1988b. A rejoinder to Lass. In Kastovsky, Dieter and Bauer, Gero (eds.), Luick Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 411–417.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Minkova, Donka. 1990. The Early Modern English vowels, more o’ lass. Diachronica 7.2: 199–213.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Minkova, Donka. 1997. On drifts and shifts. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXXI: 283–303.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torp, Arne and Vikør, Lars S.. 1993. Hovuddrag i norsk språkhistorie [Main features in the history of Norwegian]. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar
van Reenen, Pieter and Wijnands, Astrid. 1993. Early diphthongization of palatalized West Germanic [u:]. The spelling uy in Middle Dutch. In Aertsen, Henk and Jeffers, Robert J. (eds.), Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 389–415.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Keith. 2006. Further reflections on the outcomes of Northern Fronting in Older Scots. Paper read at 14 ICEHL, University of Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006.Google Scholar
Yamane, Noriko. 2002. What is great about the Great Vowel Shift? An optimality-theoretic view. English Linguistics 19.2: 392–416.Google Scholar
References
Beal, Joan C., Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Sen, Ranjan and Wallis, Christine. 2015. Eighteenth-Century English Phonology Database (ECEP). The University of Sheffield and Universidade de Vigo. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. www.dhi.ac.uk/ecep.Google Scholar
Blandford, Francis George. 1927. Shakespeare’s Pronunciation: A Transcription of Twelfth Night Act I, Scene V. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Britton, Derek. 2002. The dating of Jonson’s English Grammar. Notes and Queries 247: 331–334.Google Scholar
Cercignani, Fausto. 1981. Shakespeare’s Works and Elizabethan Pronunciation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1980. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Seventh edition 2024. Oxford: Blackwell/Wiley.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2005. Pronouncing Shakespeare. Second edition 2019. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 2013a. Early interest in Shakespearean original pronunciation. Language and History 56.1: 5–17.Google Scholar
Crystal, David (ed.). 2013b. Tyndale’s Bible: Saint Matthew’s Gospel [audio CD]. London: British Library.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2016. The Oxford Dictionary of Original Shakespearean Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David and Crystal, Ben. 2002. Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary and Language Companion. London: Penguin. www.shakespeareswords.com.Google Scholar
Dobson, Michael and Wells, Stanley. 2015. The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Early English Books Online (EEBO). ProQuest. https://proquest.libguides.com/eebopqp.Google Scholar
Ellis, Alexander J. 1869–1874. On Early English Pronunciation, with Especial Reference to Shakespeare and Chaucer. Part 3 [1871]: Illustrations of the Pronunciation of the XIVth and XVIth Centuries. London: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1999. Phonology and morphology. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–186.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 2006. Phonology and morphology. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–108.Google Scholar
Levins, Peter. 1570. Manipulus Vocabulorum: A Rhyming Dictionary of the English Language. Edition published for the Early English Text Society, 1867. London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Lockhart, J. G. 1818. On the Cockney school of poetry No. IV. Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 3: 520–521.Google Scholar
Meier, Paul. 2010. Shakespeare and original pronunciation. www.paulmeier.com/shakespeare/.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.). 2006. The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mulcaster, Richard. 1582. The First Part of the Elementarie. London: Thomas Vautroullier.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Steele, Joshua. 1969 [1775]. An Essay towards Establishing the Melody and Measure of Speech. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Walker, John. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. London: Robinson.Google Scholar
Wall, John N. 2013. The virtual St Paul’s Cross project. North Carolina State University: English Department. https://vpcp.chass.ncsu.edu/.Google Scholar
Wall, John N. 2020. The virtual St Paul’s Cathedral project. North Carolina State University: English Department. https://vpcathedral.chass.ncsu.edu/.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Caroline. 2013. The man himself: The face of Richard III. The Ricardian Bulletin September: 50–54.Google Scholar
References
Advertisement, English and French grammar school for young ladies, Star and Evening Advertiser, 16 August 1798.Google Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2003. The social life of cultural value. Language and Communication 23: pp. 231–273.10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00012-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batchelor, Thomas. 1974. A Critical Facsimile Edition of Thomas Batchelor, An Orthoëpical Analysis of the English Language and An Orthoëpical Analysis of the Dialect of Bedfordshire (1809) ed. Zettersten, Arne. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
BBC Archives. BBC WAC C168. The Language of Radio. Accents, Pronunciation and Newsreaders.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. 2008. ‘Shamed by your English?’: the market value of a ‘good’ pronunciation. In Beal, Joan, Nocera, Carmela and Sturiale, Massimo (eds.), Perspectives on Prescriptivism. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan. Walker, John (1732–1807), elocutionist, orthoepist, and lexicographer. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://tinyurl.com/3uuxcfty.Google Scholar
Benzie, William. 1972. The Dublin Orator: Thomas Sheridan’s Influence on Eighteenth-Century Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Boswell, James. 1971. Boswell’s Life of Johnson ed. Hill, George Birkbeck, rev. and enlarged L. F. Powell. Second edition. 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Boswell, James. 2004. Boswell’s London Journal 1762–1763 ed. Pottle, Frederick. Second edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James. 1757. Linguae Britiannicae Vera Pronunciatio or, a New English Dictionary. London: A. Millar.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James. 1766. Essay towards Establishing a Standard for an Elegant and Uniform Pronunciation. London: Edward and Charles Dilly.Google Scholar
Clifford, James. 1935. New light on the origin of Eastern American pronunciation of unaccented final ‘A’. American Speech 10: pp. 173–175.Google Scholar
Collins, Beverley and Mees, Inger. 2003. Practical Phonetics and Phonology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Defoe, Daniel. 1738. A Tour Thro’ the Whole Island of Great Britain. London: J. Osborn.Google Scholar
Douglas, Sylvester. 1991. A Treatise on the Provincial Dialect of Scotland ed. Jones, Charles. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dyche, Thomas. 1722. Dictionary of All the Words Commonly Us’d in the English Tongue. London: Richard Ware.Google Scholar
Dyche, Thomas and Pardon, William. 1755. New General English Dictionary London: Richard Ware.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. 2000. T-glottalling. Between stigma and prestige. A sociolinguistic study of modern RP. PhD thesis, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Freeman, Hadley. 2020. Interview: Anne Glenconner. Guardian Review, 21 March, pp. 20–23.Google Scholar
Hart, John. 1569. An Orthographie Conteyning the Due Order and Reason, Howe to Write or Paint th’image of Mannes Voice, Most Like to the Life or Nature. London. William Seres.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2009. ‘Telling people how to speak’: Rhetorical grammars and pronouncing dictionaries. In van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Current Issues in Late Modern English. Proceedings of the Third Late Modern English Conference. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 89–116.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2000. Non-standard orthography and non-standard speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 497–513.10.1111/1467-9481.00127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language in Which the Words Are Deduced From Their Originals, 2 vols. Fourth edition (1773). London: W. Strahan, J. and P. Knapton.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. 2010. The Lives of the Poets. Midendorf, John H. (ed.). 3 vols. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 2012. Late Modern English: phonology. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 827–842.Google Scholar
Jonson, Ben. 1928. The English Grammar … For the Benefit of all Strangers, Out of His Observation of the English Language Now Spoken and in Use. London: Lanston.Google Scholar
Kenrick, William. 1773. A New Dictionary of the English Language: Containing, Not Only the Explanation of Words … But Likewise, Their Orthoepia or Pronunciation in Speech. London: John and Francis Rivington.Google Scholar
Laidler, Graham. 1936. The British character. Inability of British announcers to speak English. Punch, 30 Sept., p. 375.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English With an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2007. Talking Proper. The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol. Revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2011. Benjamin Smart and Michael Faraday: The principles and practice of talking proper in nineteenth-century England. In Adams, Michael and Curzan, Anne (eds.), Contours of English and English Language Studies: In Honor of Richard W. Bailey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 87–107.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2012. English in the nineteenth century. In Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.), The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 274–308.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2018. ‘Speaking selves’. Johnson, Boswell, and the problem of spoken English. Transactions of the Johnson Society, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Newman, F. W. 1869. Orthoëpy: Or, A Simple Mode of Accenting English. London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Oxford Professional Consulting. www.opcoxford.com/talking-posh-do-i-need-to-lose-my-accent/.Google Scholar
Poole, John. 1815. The Village School Improved: Or, The New System of Education Practically Explained. Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poster, Carol. 2015. A good dissenter speaking well: William Enfield’s educational and elocutionary philosophies in religious context. Advances in the History of Rhetoric 18: 97–122.Google Scholar
Purves, Peter. 2009. Here’s One I Wrote Earlier: Peter Purves – The Autobiography London: Jules Gammon.Google Scholar
Review of Thomas Sheridan. 1762. A Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties which Occur in Learning the English Tongue 1762. Scot’s Magazine XXIV: 372–375.Google Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas. 1756. British Education: Or, the Source of the Disorders of Great Britain. London: J. Dodsley.Google Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas. 1757. An Oration, Pronounced before a Numerous Body of the Nobility and Gentry. London: M. Williamson.Google Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas. 1780. A Complete Dictionary of the English Language, Both with Regard to Sound and Meaning. 2 vols. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas. 1786. Elements of English: Being a New Method of Teaching THE WHOLE ART OF READING. London: Charles Dilly.Google Scholar
Smart, Benjamin. 1810. A Practical Grammar of English Pronunciation. London: Richardson.Google Scholar
Smart, Benjamin. 1836. Walker Remodelled. A New Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. London: Thomas Cadell.Google Scholar
Swift, Jonathan. 1712. A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Language. London: Benjamin Tooke.Google Scholar
Thrale, Hester. 1951. Thraliana: The Diary of Mrs. Hester Lynch Thrale (Later Mrs. Piozzi) 1776–1809 ed. Balderston, Katherine C.. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, John. 1774. A General Idea of a Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. London: T. Becket.Google Scholar
Walker, John. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. London: G. and J. Robinson.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Alexander, James D. 1985. R-metathesis in English. A diachronic account. Journal of English Linguistics 18.1: 33–40.10.1177/007542428501800104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algeo, John (ed.). 2001. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume VI: English in North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altendorf, Ulrike, MacDonald, Rachel and Thielking, Niklas. 2021. S-retraction in the south-east of England: a snapshot of the emergence of a sound change in progress. In Kolbe-Hanna, Daniela and Wischer, Ilse (eds), Anglistik. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2008. English dialects in the North of England: phonology. In Kortmann, and Upton, (eds), pp. 122–144.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 54: 508–556.10.1353/lan.1998.0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boberg, Charles. 2008. English in Canada: phonology. In Schneider, (ed.), pp. 144–160.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Sean. 2008. White South African English: phonology. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), Varieties of English: African, South and Southeast Asia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 164–176.Google Scholar
Bowie, David. 2003. Early development of the Card-Cord Merger in Utah. American Speech 78: 31–51.10.1215/00031283-78-1-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, Susanne E., Hamilton, Sarah M. and Rivera-Campos, Ahmed. 2016. Acquiring rhoticity across languages: an ultrasound study of differentiating tongue movements. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 30.3–5: 174–201.10.3109/02699206.2015.1127999CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchstaller, Isabelle, Corrigan, Karen P., Holmberg, Anders, Honeybone, Patrick and Maguire, Warren. 2013. T-to-R and the Northern Subject Rule: questionnaire-based spatial, social and structural linguistics. English Language and Linguistics 17.1: 85–128.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate and Kortmann, Bernd (eds.). 2008. Varieties of English. Vol. 3. The Pacific and Australasia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn and Watson, Kevin. 2011. Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool English t-to-r. English Language and Linguistics 15.3: 523–547.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 2010. Newfoundland and Labrador English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 2014. Gimson’s Pronunciation of English. Eighth edition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Defoe, Daniel. 1724–1727. A Tour Thro’ the Whole Island of Great Britain. London: n.p.Google Scholar
Denton, Jeannette Marshall. 2001. Phonetic insights into the articulation of early West Germanic /r/. In van de Velde, and van Hout, (eds.), pp. 159–172.Google Scholar
Denton, Jeanette Marshall. 2003. Reconstructing the articulation of Early Germanic *r. Diachronica 20.1: 11–43.10.1075/dia.20.1.04denCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, Gerry and Foulkes, Paul. 2001. Variability in (r) production: instrumental perspectives. In van de Velde, and van Hout, (eds.), pp. 174–184.Google Scholar
Ellis, Alexander J. 1868–1889. On Early English Pronunciation. 5 vols. London: Philological Society. Reprinted 1968 in New York by the Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, Blaine. 2003. On the development of English r. In Minkova, Donka and Stockwell, Robert (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language. A Millenial Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 183–206.Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. 2017. Twentieth-century received pronunciation: prevocalic /r/. In Hickey, (ed.), pp. 39–65.Google Scholar
Fisher, John Hurt. 2001. British and American, continuity and divergence. In Algeo, (ed.), pp. 59–85.Google Scholar
Flint, Mather. 1740. Prononciation de la langue angloise. London and Brussels: B. Le Francq.Google Scholar
Foulkes, Paul and Docherty, Gerry. 2000. Another chapter in the story of /r/: ‘labio-dental’ variants in British English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 30–59.Google Scholar
Gąsiorowski, Piotr. 2006. A shibboleth upon their tongues. Early English /r/ revisited. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 42: 63–76.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth and Maclagan, Margaret. 2008. Regional and social differences in New Zealand: phonology. In Burridge, and Kortmann, (eds.), pp. 64–76.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J. 2008a. New York, Philadelphia, and other northern cities: phonology. In Schneider, (ed.), pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J. 2008b. The West and Midwest: phonology. In Schneider, (ed.), pp. 129–143.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 2013. Wide-domain r-effects in English. Journal of Linguistics 49.2: 329–365.10.1017/S0022226712000369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer and Clendon, Alhana. 2012. (Non-)rhoticity: lessons from New Zealand English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 761–772.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer and Sudbury, Andrea. 2005. How rhoticity became /r/-sandhi. Language 81: 799–823.10.1353/lan.2005.0175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Warren, Paul and Drager, Katie. 2006. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34.4: 458–484.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 1996. The acquisition of Irish English phonology. In Daw, James and Wolff, Michèle (eds.), Language and Lives, Festschrift for Werner Enninger. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 171–187.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2005. Dublin English. Evolution and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2009. Weak segments in Irish English. In Minkova, Donka (ed.), Phonological Weakness in English: From Old to Present-day English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 116–129.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2014a. The Sound Structure of Modern Irish. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2014b. Vowels before /r/ in the history of English. In Schreier, Daniel, Timofeeva, Olga, Gardner, Anne, Honkapoja, Alpo and Pfenninger, Simone (eds.), Contact, Variation and Change in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–110.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2017. Listening to the Past: Audio Records of Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Archibald A. 1940. Early loss of [r] before dentals. Proceedings of the Modern Languages Association 55.2: 308–359.Google Scholar
Holder, William. 1669. The Elements of Speech. J. Martyn for the Royal Society. Reprinted 1967. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Horvath, Barbara. 2008. Australian English: phonology. In Burridge, and Kortmann, (eds.), pp. 625–644.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert B. 1987. Tracing the origins of uvular r in Germanic. Folia Linguistica Historica 7.2: 317–349.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, Ossi. 1994. The dialects of England since 1776. In Robert, W. Burchfield (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume V: English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–274.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1956 [1917]. Everyman’s English Pronouncing Dictionary. Eleventh edition. New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Jonson, Ben. 1640. The English Grammar for the Benefit of All Strangers, Out of His Observation of the English Language Now Spoken, and in Use. No place of publication.Google Scholar
Kenyon, John Samuel and Albert Knott, Thomas. 1944. A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English. Springfield, MA: Merriam.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. and Beach, Stephanie A.. 1998. On the origins of German uvular [ʀ]: the Yiddish evidence. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 10.2: 279–290.Google Scholar
Kleine, Ane. 2003. Standard Yiddish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33.2: 261–265.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Upton, Clive (eds.). 2008. Varieties of English, Vol. 1: The British Isles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2008. Standard American English pronunciation. In Schneider, (ed.), pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans. 1971. Mourning and morning. In Juanita, V. Williamson and Virginia, M. Burke (eds.), A Various Language: Perspectives on American Dialects. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 417–423.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1977. On the phonetic specification of Old English /r/. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 9: 3–16.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1983. Velar /r/ and the history of English. In Davenport, Michael, Hansen, Eric and Nielsen, Hans Frede (eds.), Current Topics in English Historical Linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1999. Phonology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–186.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger and Anderson, John M.. 1975. Old English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Wayne P. 2000. /str/ > /ʃtr/: assimilation at a distance? American Speech 75: 82–87.Google Scholar
Lee, Hyun Bok. 1999. Korean. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 120–123.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona. 1985. The story of /r/. In Fromkin, Victoria (ed.), Phonetic Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar
Maguire, Warren. 2016. Pre-R dentalisation in Scotland. English Language and Linguistics 20.2: 315–339.10.1017/S1360674316000034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateus, Maria Helena and d’Andrade, Ernesto. 2000. The Phonology of Portuguese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198235811.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April and McMahon, Robert. 2005. Language Classification by Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199279012.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 2014. A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mompean, José A. and Mompean-Guillamón, Pilar. 2009. /r/-liaison in English: an empirical study. Cognitive Linguistics 20.4: 733–776.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2003. Talking Proper: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert. 2012. Phonology. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 255–271.Google Scholar
Natvig, David and Salmons, Joseph. 2020. Fully accepting variation in (pre)history: the pervasive heterogeneity of Germanic rhotics. In Patricia, C. Sutcliffe (ed.), The Polymath Intellectual: A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Robert D. King. Dripping Springs, TX: Agarita Press, pp. 81–101.Google Scholar
Okada, Hideo. 1999. Japanese phonology. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–119.Google Scholar
Påhlsson, Christer. 1972. The Northumbrian Burr: A Sociolinguistic Study. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Recasens, Daniel. 1991. On the production characteristics of apico-alveolar taps and trills. Journal of Phonetics 19: 267–280.Google Scholar
Rogers, Robert Ruskin. 1855. Poor Letter R: Its Use and Abuse – A Letter of Condolence to Poor Letter H. London: Privately published.Google Scholar
Runge, Richard M. 1973. The phonetic realisation of Proto-Germanic /r/. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 87: 228–247.Google Scholar
Rutter, Ben. 2011. Acoustic analysis of a sound change in progress: the consonant cluster /str/ in English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41.1: 27–40.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, Blondeau, Hélène and Charity, Anne. 2001. Individual roles in a real-time change: Montreal r > R 1947–1995. In van de Velde, and van Hout, (eds.), pp. 142–157.+R+1947–1995.+In+van+de+Velde,+and+van+Hout,+(eds.),+pp.+142–157.>Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.). 2008. Varieties of English, Vol. 2: The Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 1995. A case of distant assimilation: /str/ >/ʃtr/. American Speech 70: 101–107.Google Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas. 1781. A Rhetorical Grammar of the English Language Calculated Solely for the Purpose of Teaching Propriety of Pronunciation and Justness of Delivery, in That Tongue. Dublin: Price.Google Scholar
Siebs, Theodor. 1969. Deutsche Aussprache. Nineteenth revised edition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton. 2013. Analogy in the emergence of intrusive-r in English. English Language and Linguistics 17.1: 55–84.Google Scholar
Stanley, E. G. 1952. The chronology of R-metathesis in Old English. English and Germanic Studies 5: 103–115.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2008. Scottish English: phonology. In Kortmann, and Upton, (eds.), pp. 48–70.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1905. Anglo-Saxon Primer with Grammar, Notes, and Glossary. Eighth revised edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1952. Anglo-Saxon Primer with Grammar, Notes, and Glossary. Ninth revised edition by Norman Davis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Trautmann, Moritz. 1880. Besprechung einiger schulbücher nebst bemerkungen über die r-laute. Anglia 3: 204–222.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2008. The dialect of East Anglia. In Kortmann, and Upton, (eds.), pp. 178–193.Google Scholar
Upton, Clive and Widdowson, John D. A.. 2006 [1996]. An Atlas of English Dialects. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Velde, Hans van de and van Hout, Roeland (eds.). 2001. ‘r-atics: sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. In Études et Travaux 4. Brussels: Institut de Langues Vivantes et de Phonétique.Google Scholar
Walker, John. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. Menston: Scolar Press (reprint).Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wełna, Jerzy. 1999. ‘Downs and ups’ of short [e] before nonprevocalic [r], or Late Middle English e-Lowering. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 34: 55–72.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2001. The unity and variation of (German) /r/. In van de Velde, and van Hout, (eds.), pp. 11–26.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt and Schilling, Natalie. 2016. American English: Dialects and Variation. Third edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
References
Aarts, Bas. 1992. Small Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110861457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In Brettschneider, Gunter and Lehmann, Christian (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler [Paths in the Research of Universals. Linguistic Studies for Hansjakob Seiler on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday] Tübingen: Gunter Narr, pp. 292–299.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, Marisa. 2018. Taking it up a level: copy-raising and cascaded tiers of morphosyntactic change. Language Variation and Change 30: 231–260.10.1017/S0954394518000078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro-Chao, Noelia. 2022. The emergence and loss of the English minor complementizers till and until. Journal of English Linguistics 50.4: 354–383.10.1177/00754242221126698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 2008. Variation in the grammaticalization of complementizers from verba dicendi in Sinitic languages. Linguistic Typology 12.1: 45–98.10.1515/LITY.2008.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert and D’hoedt, Frauke. 2015. Variability in clausal verb complementation: the case of admit. In Höglund, Mikko, Rickman, Paul, Rudanko, Juhani and Havu, Jukka (eds.), Perspectives on Complementation: Structure, Variation and Boundaries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–100.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, D’hoedt, Frauke and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Variability in verb complementation in Late Modern English: finite vs. non-finite patterns. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182–203.10.1017/CBO9781139507226.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2008. Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 19.3: 391–425.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2007. For … to-infinitives as verbal complements in late modern and present-day English: between motivation and change. English Studies 88.1: 67–94.10.1080/00138380601042766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12: 55–102.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. English -ing-clauses and their problems: the structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48.6: 1153–1193.10.1515/ling.2010.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2014. Constrained confusion: the gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–238.10.1017/CBO9781139507226.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2015. Participle clauses between adverbial and complement. Word 61.1: 39–74.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2005. Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: the case of like and love with the to-infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33.1: 3–34.10.1177/0075424204273959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2007. Diachronic aspects of complementation: constructions, entrenchment and the matching problem. In Cain, Christopher and Russom, Geoffrey (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III: Managing Chaos – Strategies for Identifying Change in English. 1–37. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
D’hoedt, Frauke. 2017. Language change in constructional networks: the development of the English Secondary Predicate Construction. Doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
D’hoedt, Frauke and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2017. The development of the as-Secondary Predicate Construction: constructionalization and internalization. Language Sciences 59: 16–35.10.1016/j.langsci.2016.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’hoedt, Frauke, De Smet, Hendrik and Cuyckens, Hubert. 2019. Constructions waxing and waning: a diachronic overview of the zero-Secondary Predicate Construction. Journal of English Linguistics 47.1: 3–28.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2000. Gerund versus infinitive as complement of transitive verbs in English: the problems of ‘tense’ and ‘control’. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.10.1093/oso/9780199213733.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996a. The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica 13: 29–62.10.1075/dia.13.1.03fanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996b. On the historical development of English retrospective verbs. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 71–79.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: the rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica 21: 5–55.10.1075/dia.21.1.03fanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2007. Drift and the development of sentential complements in British and American English from 1700 to the present day. 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. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 161–236.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntactic change and borrowing: the case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–89.10.1515/9783110886047.17CrossRefGoogle 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 Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.), Language Change and Language Structure in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–133.10.1515/9783110886573.91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1998. On negative raising in the history of English. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel and Van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 55–100.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Koopman, Willem and Van Kemenade, Ans. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, De Smet, Hendrik and van der Wurff, Wim. 2017. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139049559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren. 2019. Categoriality in Language Change: The Case of the English Gerund. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190917579.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, De Smet, Hendrik and Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2015. What it means to verbalize: the changing discourse functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43.1: 36–60.Google Scholar
García-Castro, Laura. 2020. The diachronic evolution of the complementation profile of remember from Late Modern to Present-Day British English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 121.1: 144–180.Google Scholar
Gentens, Caroline. 2020. The Factive-Reported Distinction in English: Representational and Interpersonal Semantics. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110669695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline and Rudanko, Juhani. 2019. The Great Complement Shift and the role of understood subjects: the case of fearful. Folia Linguistica 53.1: 51–86.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Green, Clarence. 2017. Patterns and Development in the English Clause System. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J. and Walker, Terry. 2021. Speech Representation in the History of English: Topics and Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin. 1978. The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: a universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hendery, Rachel. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A Case Study in the Methods of Diachronic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaunisto, Mark and Rudanko, Juhani. 2019. Variation in Non-finite Constructions in English. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María-José. 2007. Adverbial connectives within and beyond adverbial subordination: the history of lest. In Lenker, Ursula and Meurman-Solin, Anneli (eds.), Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–27.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María-José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2001. On the history of if and though-links with declarative complement clauses. English Language and Linguistics 5.1: 93–107.10.1017/S1360674301000144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María-José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2012. On the use of as if, as though, and like in present-day complementation structures. Journal of English Linguistics 40.2: 172–195.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María-José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2015. Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: from adverbial subordination to complementation in English. Language Sciences 47: 188–198.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. Contractions of English semi-modals: the emancipating effect of frequency. Doctoral dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.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. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1990. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D. 2001. Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–110.Google Scholar
Percillier, Michael. 2020. Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 214–242.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76.4: 367–388.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 149–182.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 205–249.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2006. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 143–166.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2017. Infinitives and Gerunds in Recent English: Studies on Non-finite Complements with Data from Large Corpora. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani and Paul, Rickman. 2022. Analyzing the gerundial patterns of prevent: new corpus evidence from recent English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 67.1–2: 71–87.Google Scholar
Ruohonen, Juho and Rudanko, Juhani. 2020. Infinitival vs Gerundial Complementation with Afraid, Accustomed, and Prone. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Saarimäki, Veera. 2018. Sentential complementation of propose in recent British English. In Kaunisto, Mark, Höglund, Mikko and Rickman, Paul (eds.), Changing Structures: Studies in Constructions and Complementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, Maria-Sol, De Smet, Hendrik and Cornillie, Bert. 2015. Between subordinate and insubordinate: paths towards complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 77: 3–19.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Kasper. 2014. Complement clauses and complementation systems: a cross-linguistic study of grammatical organization. PhD thesis, University of Jena.Google Scholar
Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth, C. Traugott and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 313–329.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.1: 31–55.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: a case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49: 295–332.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan and Noël, Dirk. 2011. Raising: Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23.1: 1–36.Google Scholar
Van linden, An. 2010. From premodal to modal meaning: adjectival pathways in English. Cognitive Linguistics 21: 537–571.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2020. Where do complementizers come from and how did they come about? In Padovan, Andrea (ed.), Lexical Issues in the Architecture of the Language Faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 30–55.Google Scholar
References
Auer, Anita. 2009. The Subjunctive in the Age of Prescriptivism: English and German Developments during the Eighteenth Century. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230584365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B&T = Bosworth, Joseph and Northcote Toller, T.. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 1921. Supplement by T. Northcote Toller. 1972. Revised and enlarged addenda by Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Behre, Frank. 1950. The origin and early history of meditative-polemic should in that-clauses. Göteborg Högskolas Årsskrift 56.3: 275–309. [Reprinted in Alvar Ellegård and Yngve Olsson (eds.)]. 1961. Frank Behre. Papers on English Vocabulary and Syntax. Edited on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Göteborg: Gothenburg Studies in English XVI: 87–127.Google Scholar
Benson, Larry D. (ed.). 2008. The Riverside Chaucer. Third edition, with a new foreword by Christopher Cannon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5.1: 107–136.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey N., Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blake, Norman (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CLMET = De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller and Jukka Tyrkkö. 2013. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. Leuven: K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar
Crawford, William J. 2009. The mandative subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
Daugs, Robert. 2017. On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Hiltunen, Turo, McVeigh, Joe and Säily, Tanja (eds.), Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations. Helsinki: VARIENG. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/19/.Google Scholar
de Groot, Casper. 2007. The king is on huntunge. On the relation between progressive and absentive in Old and Early Modern English. In Hannay, Mike and Steen, Gerard J. (eds.), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2013. Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe. Studies in Language 37.3: 599–644.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 605–653.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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. 81–103.10.1075/scl.63.08elsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1990. Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English, Part 2. Studia Neophilologica 62.2: 129–149.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2020. On the history of the English progressive construction Jane came whistling down the street. Journal of English Linguistics 48.4: 319–354.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2023. Tomorrow I’ll go (a) shopping: on the history of the Expeditionary Go construction and its relation to the absentive. Folia Linguistica Historica 44.1: 1–40.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa 2024. English motion and progressive constructions, and the typological drift from bounded to unbounded discourse construal. Language Sciences 101: 1–19.10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, Seamus Johnston and Zeltia Blanco-Suárez. 2025. Tracing the origins and grammaticalization path of Irish English habitual do V: an analysis of the 1641 Depositions. Folia Linguistica Historica 46.1: 1–37.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1992. The historical present tense in English literature: an oral pattern and its literary adaptation. Language and Literature 17: 77–107.Google Scholar
Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1492–1510.Google Scholar
Hewson, John. 2001. Aspect and tense from PIE to Germanic: the systemic evolution. In Watts, Sheila, West, Jonathan and Solms, Hans-Joachim (eds.), Zur Verbmorphologie germanischer Sprachen/Verbal Morphology in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
Hewson, John and Bubenik, Vit. 1997. Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. (ed.). 1992b. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil. 2020. Grammaticalising the Perfect and Explanations of Language Change: Have- and Be-perfects in the History and Structure of English and Bulgarian. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8.1: 47–69.10.1017/S1360674304001248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2009. Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change? In Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2021. ‘The next morning I got a warrant for the man and his wife, but he was fled’: Did sociolinguistic factors play a role in the loss of the be-perfect? In Kranich, Svenja and Breban, Tine (eds.), Lost in Change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–233.10.1075/slcs.218.07hunCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Howard and Macleod, Morgan. 2020. Semantics and syntax in Old English mood selection. Transactions of the Philological Society 118.2: 304–339.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2008. From locative to durative to focalized? The English progressive and ‘PROG Imperfective Drift’. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina and Dury, Richard (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matti, Kilpiö. 2007. Auxiliation in progress: diachronic grammaticalisation changes in Old English and Early Middle English HAVE perfects. In Rissanen, Matti, Hintikka, Marianna, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena and McConchie, Rod (eds.), Change in Meaning and the Meaning of Change: Studies in Semantics and Grammar from Old to Present-Day English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 323–343.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas. 2022. Does preverbal Old English ge- have semantic or aspectual force?: evidence from the Dictionary of Old English. Studia Neophilologica 94.1: 87–104.10.1080/00393274.2021.2025146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042031449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2009. Modality and the history of English adhortatives. In Salkie, et al. (eds.), pp. 315–347.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (ed.). 1999b. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 223–240.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, J. W. Richard. 1970. Old English Preverbal Ge-: Its Meaning. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google 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: 411–421.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2012. The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–46.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860210.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Macleod, Morgan. 2014. Synchronic variation in the Old English perfect. Transactions of the Philological Society 112.3: 319–343.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian and Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current change in English syntax. In Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 318–342.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2020. The History of the Present English Subjunctive. A Corpus-Based Study of Mood and Modality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33.2: 157–211.10.1515/ling.1995.33.2.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–140.Google Scholar
Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter and Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94.4: 867–901.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Wrenn, C. L.. 1955. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 301–329.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). 2009. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences Between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rütten, Tanja. 2015. For whom the bell tolls, or: why we predicted the death of the English subjunctive. In Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina (ed.), Can We Predict Linguistic Change? Helsinki: VARIENG. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/16/.Google Scholar
Rütten, Tanja. 2017. Speech, texts, and choices from the modal system: mood distribution in Old English sermons. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16.1: 190–213.10.35360/njes.399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salkie, Raphael, Busuttil, Pierre and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2009. Modality in English: Theory and Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. The conditional subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 277–305.Google Scholar
Steadman, J. M. 1917. The origin of the historical present in English. Studies in Philology 14.1: 1–46.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2019. Are comparative modals converging or diverging in English? Different answers from the perspectives of grammaticalisation and constructionalisation. In Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, Van Bergen, Linda and Hollmann, Willem B. (eds.), Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan and Plungian, Wladimir A.. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Stanley and Taylor, Gary (eds.). 1986. The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2006. Grammaticalisation and language contact in the history of English: the evolution of the progressive form. In Ritt, Nikolaus, Schendl, Herbert, Dalton-Puffer, Christiane and Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.), Medieval English and Its Heritage: Structure, Meaning and Mechanisms of Change. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 165–187.Google Scholar
Yao, Xinyue. 2024. The Present Perfect and the Preterite in Late Modern and Contemporary English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammatical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
References
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
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2016. Language between Description and Prescription: Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Special passives across the lifespan: cognitive and social mechanisms. PhD thesis, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2021. Individuality in Language Change. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110725841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty and Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelis, Louise H. 1997. Passive and Perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004484672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert. 1999. Historical evidence in prepositional semantics: the case of English ‘by’. In Tops, Guy A. J, Devriendt, Betty and Geukens, Steven (eds.), Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Orbis Supplementa 12. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
Dal, Ingerid and Eroms, Hans-Werner. 2014. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110335163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 66: 189–204.10.1080/00138388508598384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dreschler, Gea. 2015. Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Dreschler, Gea. 2019. ‘Fifty pounds will buy me a pair of horses for my carriage’: the history of permissive subjects in English. English Language and Linguistics 24.4: 719–744.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: the rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica 21: 5–55.Google Scholar
Feng, Shuang. 2014. On the development of middles in the history of English. Ivy 47: 21–39.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1989. The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 8.1/2: 143–217.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntactic change and borrowing: the case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–89.Google 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
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2006. The origin of passive get. English Language and Linguistics 10.2: 225–252.10.1017/S1360674306001912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Thomas. 1985. Did OE have a middle voice? In Fisiak, Jacek and Ahlquist, Anders (eds.), Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–138.Google Scholar
Fraser, Thomas. 1987. The establishment of by to denote agency in English passive constructions. In Ramat, Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio and Bernini, Giuliano (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 239–249.10.1075/cilt.48.18fraCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, Gwang-Yoon. 2000. The synchrony and diachrony of the English prepositional passive. PhD thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Henk, Antony. 2020. Toward a source for Vercelli VII: an analysis of three continental examples of in Epistula ad Hebraeos Chrysostom a Mutiano, sermo XXIX in three codices. MA seminar paper. www.academia.edu/45101514/Toward_a_Source_for_Vercelli_VII.Google Scholar
Henley, Nancy M., Miller, Michelle and Anne Beazley, Jo. 1995. Syntax, semantics, and sexual violence: agency and the passive voice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14: 60–84.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 213–241.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. 1971. The Sentence in Written English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2001. What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-constructions. Studies in Language 25.1: 49–87.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. The passival and the progressive passive: a case study of layering in the English aspect and voice systems. In Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalisation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–117.Google Scholar
Jones, Howard and Macleod, Morgan. 2017. The status of passive constructions in Old English. Transactions of the Philological Society 116.1: 59–90.Google Scholar
Kaltenbach, Lena. 2020. The recipient passive in the history of English. Mannheim Papers in Multilingualism, Acquisition and Change 1: 73–112.Google Scholar
Kilpiö, Matti. 1989. Passive Constructions in Old English Translations from Latin: With Special Reference to the OE Bede and the Pastoral Care. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1987. Functional Syntax, Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2002. The loss of the indefinite pronoun man. In Fanego, Teresa, Lopez-Couso, Maria Jose and Perez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 181–202.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13.1: 97–125.10.1017/S1360674308002876CrossRefGoogle 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 Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 859–871.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian and Leech, Geoffrey. 2021. Current changes in English syntax. In Aarts, Bas, McMahon, April and Hinrichs, Lars (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 249–276.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, Vol. 1: Concord, the Parts of Speech and the Sentence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2015. (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences 47: 148–160.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2001. The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses: evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood. Studies in Language 25.2: 255–296.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2008. The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: a diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36.4: 314–340.10.1177/0075424208321750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk and Colleman, Timothy. 2009. The nominative and infinitive in English and Dutch: an exercise in contrastive diachronic construction grammar. Languages in Contrast 9.1: 144–181.10.1075/lic.9.1.08noeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parliament. 1775. Rotuli Parliamentorum, ut et Petitiones, et Placita in Parliamento … : Ab Anno Decimo Octavo R. Henrici Sexti ad Finem eiusdem Regni (u.a.), Volume 5. Great Britain: Parliament.Google Scholar
Pelle, Stephen. 2012. Sources and analogues for Blickling homily V and Vercelli homily XI. Notes and Queries 59: 8–13.10.1093/notesj/gjr271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Pete. 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/S1360674310000158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2015. What grammar reveals about sex and death: interdisciplinary applications of corpus-based linguistics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30.3: 371–387.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2018. Die Rolle der Frequenz in der Grammatikalisierung: lange Passive mit by im Englischen. Sprachwissenschaft 43.2: 251–280.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter and Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Individuality in complex systems: a constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics 31.2: 185–212.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter, Anthonissen, Lynn, Budts, Sara, Manjavacas, Enrique, Silva, Emma-Louise, Standing, William and Strik, Odile A.O.. 2019. Early Modern Multiloquent Authors (EMMA): designing a large-scale corpus of individuals’ languages. ICAME Journal 43: 83–122.10.2478/icame-2019-0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiegg, Markus and Petré, Peter. Forthcoming. Individual variation and change across the lifespan. In Drinka, Bridget, Nevalainen, Terttu and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 1999. The consolidation of the indirect and prepositional passive in Early Modern English: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 7: 119–139.Google 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. 224–248.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2010. The effect of prominence hierarchies on Modern English long passives: pragmatic vs. syntactic factors. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 41: 93–106.Google Scholar
Posse, Seoane, Elena, . 2000. The passive as an information-rearranging device in Early Modern English. Studia Neophilologica 72: 24–33.10.1080/003932700750041577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, Elena and Mailhammer, Robert. 2013. Incipient grammaticalisation: sources of passive constructions in Old High German and Old English. In Diewald, Gabriele, Wischer, Ilse and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages: With a Focus on Verbal Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 41–70.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena, Mailhammer, Robert and Flach, Susanne. 2019. The role of atypical constellations in the grammaticalization of German and English passives. Diachronica 36.3: 384–416.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in Nineteenth-Century English. A Process of Integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sundby, Bertil, Kari Bjørge, Anne and Haugland, Kari E.. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700–1800. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sihols.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–139.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van de Horst, , Joop, . 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis, deel 2 [History of Dutch syntax, volume 2]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederic Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1995. Predicting the progressive passive: parametric change within a lexicalist framework. Language 71.3: 533–557.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi. 1999. Animacy and Reference: A Cognitive Approach to Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2018. Grammar writing in the eighteenth century. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Palander-Collin, Minna and Säily, Tanja (eds.), Patterns of Change in Eighteenth-Century English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
References
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi-org.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10.1075/z.232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine and Davidse, Kristin. 2016. The history of very: the directionality of functional shift and (inter)subjectification. English Language and Linguistics 20.2: 221–249.10.1017/S1360674315000428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1962. Die englische Sprache: Ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung. Vol. II. Second, revised edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
BT = Bosworth, Joseph and Thomas Northcote Toller (eds.). 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary: Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. Edited and enlarged by Thomas Northcote Toller. Oxford: Clarendon. Accessed via https://bosworthtoller.com/.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2006. The lady was al demonyak: historical aspects of adverb all. English Language and Linguistics 10.2: 345–370.10.1017/S136067430600195XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartlidge, Neil (ed.). 2001. The Owl and the Nightingale: Text and Edition. Exeter: Exeter University Press.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia, Jonsson, Ewa and Kytö, Merja. 2019. Entirely innocent: a historical sociopragmatic analysis of maximizers in the Old Bailey Corpus. English Language and Linguistics 24.4: 855–874.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 1998. Echt die Wahrheit sagen. Überlegungen zur Grammatikalisierung von Adverbmarkern. Philologie im Netz 4: 1–25.Google Scholar
DOEWC = Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. Dictionary of Old English A to Le. 2024. https://doe.artsci.utoronto.ca/Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2006. On the position of adjectives in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 10.2: 253–288.Google Scholar
González-Álvarez, María Dolores. 1996. Epistemic disjuncts in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1.2: 219–256.Google Scholar
Guimier, Claude. 1985. On the origin of the suffix -ly. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Semantics: Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 155–170.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2010. Adjunct Adverbials in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Rika and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32.2: 257–279.10.1017/S0047404503322055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Stephen. 2002. On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110812428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Sidney I. 1984. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette and Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–249.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2002. Is it, stylewise or otherwise, wise to use -wise? Domain adverbs and the history of English -wise. In Fanego, Teresa et al. (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–180.10.1075/cilt.223.11lenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2008. Booster prefixes in Old English: an alternative view of the roots of ME forsooth. English Language and Linguistics 12.2: 245–265.10.1017/S136067430800261XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110216066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2024. Historical continuity in the morphological marking of subjectivity: textual perspectives on the origin of English adverbial -ly in late Old and early Middle English. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal for Word Formation 8.2: 74–106.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969 [1960]. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Second, revised ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus. 1991. Old English adjectives with derivative -lic partners: some semantic problems. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 92: 297–310.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2003. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: the case of swiþe. English Studies 84.4: 372–391.10.1076/enst.84.4.372.17388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2008. Special issue on English intensifiers. English Language and Linguistics 2008.2: 213–394.10.1017/S1360674308002591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molencki, Rafał. 2022. The grammaticalization of the epistemic adverb perhaps in late Middle and Early Modern English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 56.1: 411–424.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax, Part I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1997. The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), Grammaticalization at Work: Studies of Long-Term Developments in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–189.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Rissanen, Matti. 2013. Exceeding kind?: on the use of intensifiers before the normative era. In Tyrkkö, Jukka, Timofeeva, Olga and Salenius, Maria (eds.), Ex philologia lux: Essays in Honour of Leena Kahlas-Tarkka. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 107–130.Google Scholar
Opdahl, Lise. 2000. LY or Zero Suffix? A Study in Variation of Dual Form Adverbs in Present Day English. 2 vols. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Österman, Aune. 1997. There compounds in the history of English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), Grammaticalization at Work: Studies of Long-Term Developments in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 191–276.Google Scholar
Pahta, Päivi. 2006. Ful holsum and profetable for the bodi: a corpus study of amplifiers in medieval English medical texts. In Dossena, Marina and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Diachronic Perspectives on Domain-Specific English. Bern: Lang, pp. 207–228.Google Scholar
Peters, Hans. 1993. Die englischen Gradadverbien der Kategorie booster. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Peters, Hans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 269–288.10.1515/9783110879599.269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pounder, Amanda. 2001. Adverb-marking in German and English: system and standardization. Diachronica 18.2: 301–358.10.1075/dia.18.2.05pouCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo and Ricca, Davide. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera, Johan in collaboration with Ó Baoill, Dónall P (eds.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 187–275.10.1515/9783110802610.187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and Down-Toners: A Study in English Adverbs. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Stratton, James M. 2022. Old English intensifiers: the beginnings of the English intensifier system. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12.1: 31–69.10.1075/jhl.20011.strCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1989. The development of sentence adverbs in English. Studia Linguistica 42.1: 1–17.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril and Breivik, Leiv Egil. 2011. English sentence adverbials in a discourse and cognitive perspective. English Studies 92.6: 679–692.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2018. Near done; awful stable; really changing: the suffixless adverb in dialects of the UK. Diachronica 35.1: 107–143.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Jennifer. 2021. Obviously undergoing change: adverbs of evidentiality across time and space. Language Variation and Change 33.1: 81–105.10.1017/S0954394520000216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uhler, Karl. 1926. Die Bedeutungsgleichheit der altenglischen Adjektiva und Adverbia mit und ohne -lic (-lice). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
References
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in Non-standard British English: Gaps, Regularisations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 2010. On the diachrony of negation. In Laurence, R. Horn (ed.), The Expression of Negation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–109.10.1515/9783110219302.73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der and Van Alsenoy, Lauren. 2016. On the typology of negative concord. Studies in Language 40.3: 473–512.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der, Krasnoukhova, Olga and Vossen, Frens. 2022. Intertwining the negative cycles. In Veselinova, Ljuba and Hamari, Arja (eds.), The Negative Existential Cycle from a Historical-Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 611–650.Google Scholar
Baekken, Bjørg. 1998. Word Order Patterns in Early Modern English with Special Reference to the Position of the Subject and the Finite Verb. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, Linda van. 2008. Negative contraction and Old English dialects: evidence from glosses and prose. Part I. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 109.3: 275–312.Google Scholar
Blanchette, Frances. 2013. Negative concord in English. Linguistic Variation 13.1: 1–47.10.1075/lv.13.1.01blaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchette, Frances. 2015. English Negative Concord, Negative Polarity and Double Negation. Dissertation. New York: CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Blanchette, Frances. 2017. Micro-syntactic variation in American English negative concord. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2.1, art. 65: 1–32.Google Scholar
Blanchette, Frances and Lukyanenko, Cynthia. 2019a. Asymmetries in the acceptability and felicity of English negative dependencies: where negative concord and negative polarity (do not) overlap. Frontiers in Psychology 10: art. 2186.Google Scholar
Blanchette, Frances and Lukyanenko, Cynthia. 2019b. Unacceptable grammars? An eye-tracking study of English negative concord. Language and Cognition 11: 1–40.Google Scholar
Blanchette, Frances and Nadeu, Marianna. 2018. Prosody and the meanings of English negative indefinites. Journal of Pragmatics 129: 123–139.10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Isabelle G. 2014. ‘Giving a rat’s’ about negation: the Jespersen cycle in modern Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34.4: 453–485.10.1080/07268602.2014.929085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Isabelle G. 2019. Negation in Australian English: from bugger all to no worries. In Willoughby, Louisa and Manns, Howard (eds.), Australian English Reimagined: Structure, Features and Developments. London: Routledge, pp. 51–65.10.4324/9780429019692-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, Heather, Koopman, Hilda and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2018. Structural explanations in syntactic variation: the evolution of English negative and polarity indefinites. Language Variation and Change 30.1: 83–107.10.1017/S0954394517000266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Don and Skousen, Royal. 2005. Analogical modelling and morphological change: the case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9.2: 333–357.10.1017/S136067430500167XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 1999. English negation from an interactional perspective. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 29–53.10.1515/9783110806052.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Claire, Harvey, Christopher, Corrigan, Karen P. and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2015. Comparative sociolinguistic insights in the evolution of negation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21.2: 21–30.Google Scholar
Childs, Claire, Harvey, Christopher, Corrigan, Karen P. and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2018. Transatlantic perspectives on variation in negative expressions. English Language and Linguistics 24.1: 23−47.Google Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. 2020. Negation and verb-initial order in Old English main clauses. Journal of English Linguistics 48.4: 355–381.10.1177/0075424220941911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2010. Typology of negation. In Laurence, R. Horn (ed.), The Expression of Negation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 9–38.10.1515/9783110219302.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De-Dios-Flores, Iria. 2019. Processing sentences with multiple negations: grammatical structures that are perceived as unacceptable. Frontiers in Psychology 10: art. 2346.10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Depréz, Vivienne. 2012. Atoms of negation: an outside-in micro-parametric approach to negative concord. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 221–272.Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine. 2010. The acquisition of negation. In Laurence, R. Horn (ed.), The Expression of Negation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 39–71.10.1515/9783110219302.39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 1999. The Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2012. Social factors and language change in eighteenth-century England: the case of multiple negation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113.3: 293–321.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, Clifton, Charles Jr, Rich, Stephanie and Duff, John. 2018. Anticipating negation: the dos and don’ts of Negative Raising. Syntax 21.2: 160–194.Google Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie and Laube, Alexander. 2018. You ain’t got principle, you ain’t got nothing: verbal negation in Bahamian Creole. English World-Wide 39.3: 278–308.10.1075/eww.00015.hacCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2012. Looking high and low for NegP in early English. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 115–149.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric and Ingham, Richard. 2005. The position of negation and adverbs in Early Middle English. Lingua 177.1: 1–25.Google Scholar
Hamawand, Zeni H. (2009). Semantics of English Negative Prefixes. London: Equinox.10.3138/9781845535421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campoy, Hernández and Manuel, Juan. 2013. Ladylikeness and sociolinguistic submission in Late Medieval English society: gender-based use of negation in John Paston I and Margaret Paston / Propiedades de una dama y sumisión sociolingüística en la sociedad del inglés medieval tardío: Uso de la negación condicionado por género en John Paston I y Margaret Paston. Atlantis 35.1: 11–33.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English: History and Present-Day Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2010. Multiple negation in English and other languages. In Horn, Laurence (ed.), The Expression of Negation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 117–148.10.1515/9783110219302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine and Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2013. Negation, polarity and deontic modals. Linguistic Inquiry 44.4: 529–568.10.1162/LING_a_00138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2003. The development of Middle English expletive negative sentences. Transactions of the Philological Society 101.3: 411–452.10.1111/j.0079-1636.2003.00124.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2006. On two negative concord dialects in early English. Language Variation and Change 18: 241–266.10.1017/S0954394506060121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2007. NegP and negated constituent movement in the history of English. Transactions of the Philological Society 105.3: 365–397.10.1111/j.1467-968X.2007.00195.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2011. Ne-drop and indefinites in Anglo-Norman and Middle English. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 145–164.10.1515/9783110238617.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard 2013. Negation in the history of English. In Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher and Breitbarth, Anne (eds.), The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–150.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2001. Negative Constructions in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar
Jack, George. 1999. Negative contraction in Old English verse. The Review of English Studies NS 50.198: 133–154.10.1093/res/50.198.133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallel, Amel. 2007. The loss of negative concord in Standard English: internal factors. Language Variation and Change 19: 27–49.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited: formal properties of grammaticalization. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George and Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–74.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2012. Secondary negation and information structure organisation in the history of English. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 77–113.Google Scholar
Klopp, Ana van. 1998. An alternative view of polarity items. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 393–432.10.1023/A:1005398004093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Wolk, Christoph. 2012. Morphosyntactic variation in the anglophone world: a global perspective. In Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.), The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 906–936.Google Scholar
Laker, Stephen. 2008. The English negative comparative particle. Transactions of the Philological Society 106.1: 1–28.10.1111/j.1467-968X.2007.00191.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre 2012. Is there a Jespersen Cycle? In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. 2015. The markedness of double negation. In Larrivée, Pierre and Lee, Chungmin (eds.), Negation and Polarity. Experimental Perspectives. Special Issue of Language, Cognition and Mind 1: 177–198.10.1007/978-3-319-17464-8_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Nye-Kyung. 2005. Presupposition and implicature under negation. Journal of Pragmatics 37.5: 595–609.Google Scholar
Lucas, Christopher and Willis, David. 2012. Never again: the multiple grammaticalization of never as a marker of negation in English. English Language and Linguistics 16.3: 459–485.10.1017/S1360674312000196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkamäki, Henriikka. 2013. Gender-based use of negative concord in non-standard American English. Pro Gradu thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Mönkkönen, Ilkka. 2012. Negators in adverbial phrases indicating time and place in Old English prose with special reference to litotes. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113.4: 403–432.Google Scholar
Mönkkönen, Ilkka. 2016. Old English negators as equivalent of a clause. Studia Neophilologica 88.1: 24–42.Google Scholar
Mönkkönen, Ilkka. 2018. Negators in contrastive constructions in Old English. Studia Neophilologica 90.1: 1–16.10.1080/00393274.2017.1376594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. Negative concord as an English ‘vernacular universal’: social history and linguistic typology. Journal of English Linguistics 34: 257–278.10.1177/0075424206293144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Rutten, Gijsbert. 2012. Comparative historical sociolinguistics and the history of negation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113.3: 261–273.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez, Ignacio. 1999. Negative polarity idioms in Modern English. ICAME Journal 23: 65−115.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez, Ignacio. 2013. Non-standard negation in modern English: a corpus-based study of four salient features. ES Revista de Filología Inglesa 34: 211–226.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez, Ignacio. 2017. Negative concord in the language of British adults and teenagers. English World-Wide 38.2: 153–180.Google Scholar
Romoli, Jacopo. 2013. A scalar implicature-based approach to Neg-Raising. Linguistic and Philosophy 36.4: 291–353.10.1007/s10988-013-9136-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2013. Varieties of English: A Typological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139028240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2001. Negative concord in the Old and New World: evidence from Scotland. Language Variation and Change 13: 109–114.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2008. The codifiers and the history of multiple negation in English, or, why were the eighteenth-century grammarians so obsessed with double negation? Studies in Language and Communication 73: 197–214.Google Scholar
Thornton, Rosalind and Tesan, Graciela. 2013. Sentential negation in early child English. Journal of Linguistics 49: 367–411.Google Scholar
Tubau, Susagna. 2015. Neither, (n)or nothing and hardly in negative concord constructions in traditional dialects of British English. Sintagma 27: 7–24.Google Scholar
Tubau, Susagna. 2016. Lexical variation and negative concord in traditional dialects of British English. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19: 143–177.10.1007/s10828-016-9079-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George and Morrison, Donald Alasdair. 2017. Regional variation in Jespersen’s cycle in Early Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 52.2: 173–201.10.1515/stap-2017-0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A. 2005. The ain’t constraint: not contraction in early African American English. Language Variation and Change 17: 1–17.10.1017/S0954394505050015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallage, Phillip W. 2008. Jespersen’s cycle in Middle English: parametric variation and grammatical competition. Lingua 118: 643–674.Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip W. 2012. Negative inversion, negative concord and sentential negation in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 16.1: 3–33.Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip W. 2017. Negation in Early English: Grammatical and Functional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316335185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2005. Why DO dove: evidence for register variation in Early Modern English negatives. Language Variation and Change 17: 257–280.10.1017/S0954394505050106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, David. 2012. Negative polarity and the quantifier cycle: comparative diachronic perspectives from European languages. In Larrivée, Pierre and Ingham, Richard P. (eds.), The Evolution of Negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 285–323.Google Scholar
Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher and Beitbarth, Anne. 2013. Comparing diachronies of negation. In Willis, David, Lucas, Christopher and Breitbarth, Anne (eds.), The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Vol. 1: Case Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Wurff, Wim van der. 1999. On expletive negation with adversative predicates in the history of English. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 295–327.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2008. ‘Nor’: neither disjunction nor paradox. Linguistic Inquiry 39.3: 511–522.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2016. Diachronic developments in the domain of negation. Language and Linguistic Compass 10.6: 289–295.Google Scholar
References
Allen, Cynthia. 2006. Case syncretism and word order change. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 201–223.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2019. Dative External Possessors in Early English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The Genitive v. the Of-Construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in Seventeenth-Century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben. 2020. Against stored abstractions: a radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language 40.5–6: 509–559.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan and Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35.1: 7–31.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86.1: 186–213.10.1353/lan.0.0189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118.2: 245–259.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Szmrecsanyi, Benedict, Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Todd, Simon. 2017. Syntactic alternations data: datives and genitives in four varieties of English. Downloadable datasets and documentation for the genitive and dative alternations in four spoken varieties of English (American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand), available from the Stanford Digital Repository (https://purl.stanford.edu/qj187zs3852).Google Scholar
Ceolin, Andrea. 2021. Constraints on Old English genitive variation. Journal of Historical Syntax 5: 1–35.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 22.1: 183–209.Google Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 2012. Triggering syntactic change: inertia and local causes in the history of English genitives. In Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John and Garrett, Andrew (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 198–216.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2014. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19.1: 1–26.10.1017/S1360674314000276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11.2: 225–254.10.1515/cllt-2014-0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna and Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2023. Dialectal ditransitive patterns in British English: weighing sociolinguistic factors against language-internal constraints. In Zehentner, Eva, Röthlisberger, Melanie and Colleman, Timothy (eds.), Ditransitive Constructions in Germanic Languages: Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 195–225.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18.3: 471–496.10.1017/S1360674314000136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Benedict, Szmrecsanyi, Benedict and Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: the genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45.1: 3–27.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedict. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions. English Language and Linguistics 11.3: 437–474.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Szmrecsanyi, Benedict. 2012. Animacy in early New Zealand English. English World-Wide 33.3: 241–263.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard and Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Priming and unidirectional change. Theoretical Linguistics 34.2: 85–113.10.1515/THLI.2008.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2014. On the genitive’s trail: data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective. English Language and Linguistics 18.2: 305–329.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Adnominal possession in European languages: form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55: 141–172.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. In Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–64.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–123.Google Scholar
Polo, Chiara. 2002. Double objects and morphological triggers for syntactic case. In Lightfoot, David (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 124–142.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: the case of verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44.1: 129–167.10.1017/S0022226707004975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. Descriptive genitives in English: a case study on constructional gradience. English Language and Linguistics 10: 77–118.10.1017/S1360674306001894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2007. Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11.1: 143–189.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Animacy and grammatical variation: findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118: 151–71.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2010. How synchronic gradience makes sense in the light of language change (and vice versa). In Elizabeth, C. Traugott and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 149–179.10.1075/tsl.90.09rosCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. English genitive variation: the state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18.2: 215–262.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2017. Constraints in contact: animacy in English and Afrikaans genitive variation – a cross-linguistic perspective. Glossa 2.1: 72. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.292.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2019. On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 23.4: 759–796.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette and Kirsten, Johanita. 2024. Afrikaans influence on genitive variation in South African English? A comparative diachronic study of Afrikaans and White South African English. In van Rooy, Bertus and Kotze, Haidee (eds.), Constraints on Language Variation and Change in Complex Multilingual Contact Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–57.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette and Vezzosi, Letizia. 2000. Genitive constructions in Early Modern English: new evidence from a corpus analysis. In Sornicola, Rosanna, Poppe, Erich and Shisha-Halevy, Ariel (eds.), Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns over Time. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 285–307.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Arnim. 1990. Analyticity and Syntheticity: A Diachronic Perspective with Special Reference to Romance Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stahl, Leon. 1927. Der adnominale Genitiv und sein Ersatz im Mittelenglischen und Frühneuenglischen. Giessener Beiträge 3: 1–35.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 654–665.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: John Benjamins, pp. 59–88.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse and Franco, Karlien. 2016. Toward more accountability: modelling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28.1: 1–29.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali and Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: the dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa 2.1: p. 86. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.310.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2015. A comparative sociolinguistic analysis of the dative alternation. In Torres-Cacoullos, Rena, Dion, Nathalie and Lapierre, André (eds.), Linguistic Variation: Confronting Fact and Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 297–318.Google Scholar
Thomas, Russell. 1931. Syntactical processes involved in the development of the adnominal periphrastic genitive in the English language. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Timmer, Benno J. 1939. The place of the attributive noun-genitive in Anglo-Saxon. English Studies 21: 49–72.10.1080/00138383908596691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Google 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 30.3: 382–419.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2017. Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22.1: 149–175.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2021. Dataset of Middle English dative alternation. Retrieved from osf.io/q7sv4.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2022. Competing constructions construct complementary niches: a diachronic view on the English dative alternation. Language Dynamics and Change 13.1: 34–73.10.1163/22105832-bja10021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11.2: 261–323.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2022. Pronominally headed relative clauses in early English. English Language and Linguistics 26.1: 105–132. https://doi.org./10.1017/S136067432100006XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsagoff, Lubna and Chee Lick, Ho. 1998. The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes 17.2: 127–138.10.1111/1467-971X.00087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Burke, Isabelle. 2017. Wicked which: the linking relative in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37.3: 356–386.10.1080/07268602.2017.1298398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Adger, David and Fox, Sue. 2013. Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua 126.1: 51–77.Google Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2017. Pronominal anaphoric strategies in the West Saxon dialect of Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21: 381–408.10.1017/S136067431700020XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter, Yao, Xinyue and Macalinga Borlongan, Ariane. 2014. Relative clauses in Philippine English: a diachronic perspective. In Vandelanotte, Lieselotte, Davidse, Kristin and Gentens, Caroline (eds.), Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 2018. Revisiting the system of English relative clauses: structure, semantics, discourse functionality. English Language and Linguistics 22.3: 431–456.10.1017/S136067431700003XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2010. Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relative ‘who’. Language in Society 39.3: 383–410.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Denison, David and Hundt, Marianne. 2013. Defining relatives. Journal of English Linguistics 41.2: 135–167.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1980. On the history of subject contact-clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 139–170.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–303.Google 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
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2000. Relative clauses in Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19: 357–371.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Hinrichs, Lars. 2018. Restricting the restrictive relativiser: constraints on subject and non-subject English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14.2: 309–355.10.1515/cllt-2016-0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, Ulrike and Coronel, Lilian. 2012. Relatives worldwide. In Hundt, Marianne and Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity Worldwide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–242.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Tanja. 2008. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In Kortmann, Bernd, Herrmann, Tanja, Pietsch, Lukas and Wagner, Susanne (eds.), Volume 1 Agreement, Gender, Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–124.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bohmann, Axel. 2015. Which-hunting and the standard English relative clause. Language 91.4: 807–836.10.1353/lan.2015.0062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 2012. Syntactic and variational complexity in British and Ghanaian English relative clause formation in the written parts of the International Corpus of English. In Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds.), Linguistic Complexity. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 218–242.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward and Comrie, Bernd. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.1: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, Lunkenheimer, Kerstin and Ehret, Katharina. 2020. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3712132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernd, Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. World Englishes between simplification and complexification. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes: Problems, Properties and Prospects – Selected Papers from the Thirteenth IAWE Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–286.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1988. That: a relative pronoun? Sociolinguistics and syntactic analysis. In John, M. Anderson and Macleod, Norman (eds.), Edinburgh Studies in the English Language. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., pp. 113–119.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael. 1989. The standardization of English relative clauses. In Joseph, B. Trahern (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the History of Language Change, in Honor of John Hurt Fisher. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2012. Reconstructing syntactic continuity and change in Early Modern English regional dialects: the case of who. In Denison, David, Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris and Moore, Emma (eds.), Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–184.Google Scholar
Newbrook, Mark. 1998. Which way? That way? Variation and ongoing changes in the English relative clause. World Englishes 17.1: 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbrook, Mark. 2003. Features of the relative clause in Singapore English. In Deterding, David et al. (eds.), English in Singapore: Research on Grammar. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1995. On kind-sentences, resumptive pronouns, and relative clauses. In Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah and Baugh, John (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: A Festschrift for William Labov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–235.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1957. Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97–109.10.1080/00138385708596993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2019. Relative Clauses: Structure and Variation in Everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108687744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–233.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1983. The emergence of who as a relativiser. Studia Linguistica 37.2: 126–134.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert. 1997. The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1.2: 207–232.10.1017/S1360674300000514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2006. Relativisation in Early English (950–1250). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2008. Syntactic dialectal variation in Middle English: relativizers and relative clauses. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina and Dury, Richard (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006. Vol. I: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2009. On the syntactic differences between OE dialects: evidence from the Gospels. English Language and Linguistics 13.1: 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2014. Relative clauses in Asian Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics 42.3: 245–268.10.1177/0075424214540528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2017. The role of transparency and language contact in the structural nativization of relative clauses in New Englishes. English World-Wide 38.2: 212–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2018. A sociolinguistic study of relativisers in spoken Philippines English. In Seoane, Elena, Acuña-Fariña, Carlos and Palacios-Martínez, Ignacio (eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina and Seoane, Elena. 2021. The role of age and gender in grammatical variation in World Englishes. World Englishes 42.2: 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12546.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2002. Variation and change in the British relative marker system. In Poussa, Patricia (ed.), Dialect Contact on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 147–165.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, Smith, Jennifer and Lawrence, Helen. 2005. No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17.1: 75–112.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1997. Relatively speaking: relative marker usage in the British National Corpus. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 465–481.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Richard, M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 168–289.Google Scholar
References
Aarts, Bas, Bowie, Jill and Popova, Gergana (eds.). 2020. The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas and Close, Joanne. 2010. Current change in the modal system of English: a case study of must, have to and have got to. In Lenker, Ursula, Huber, Judith and Mailhammer, Robert (eds.), The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Vol. 1 of English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich 24–30 August 2008. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 165–181.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey and Wallis, Sean (eds.). 2013. The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne and Wallis, Sean. 2010. Recent changes in the use of the progressive construction in English. In Cappelle, Bert and Wada, Naoaki (eds.), Distinctions in English Grammar, Offered to Renaat Declerck. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 148–167.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas, Wallis, Sean and Bowie, Jill. 2014. Profiling the English verb phrase over time: modal patterns. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Kytö, Merja, Claridge, Claudia and Smith, Jeremy (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–76.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Gert, E. Booij and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 109–149.10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Gert, E. Booij and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 899–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan. 2019. Register, Genre, and Style. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 2001. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. Harlow: Longman, pp. 66–83.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: the influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15.2: 223–250.10.1017/S1360674311000025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 314–328.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bowie, Jill and Aarts, Bas. 2012. Change in the English infinitival perfect construction. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 200–210.Google Scholar
Bowie, Jill and Wallis, Sean. 2016. The to-infinitival perfect: a study of decline. In Werner, Valentin, Seoane, Elena and Suárez Gómez, Cristina (eds.), Re-assessing the Present Perfect. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 43–94.Google Scholar
Bowie, Jill, Wallis, Sean and Aarts, Bas. 2013a. The perfect in spoken British English. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, and Wallis, (eds.), pp. 318–352.Google Scholar
Bowie, Jill, Wallis, Sean and Aarts, Bas. 2013b. Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: mapping the impact of ‘genre’. In Marín‐Arrese, , Carretero, , Arús Hita, and van der Auwera, (eds.), pp. 57–94.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, Hawtin, Abi and McEnery, Tony. 2021. The Written British National Corpus 2014: design and comparability. Text & Talk 41.5–6: 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel (ed.). 2017. English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2013. Quotatives: New Trends and Sociolinguistic Implications. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118584415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle, Rickford, John R., Closs Traugott, Elizabeth, Wasow, Thomas and Zwicky, Arnold. 2010. The sociolinguistics of a short-lived innovation: tracing the development of quotative all across spoken and internet newsgroup data. Language Variation and Change 22: 191–219.Google Scholar
Buerki, Andreas. 2016. Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies 20.1: 15–34.Google Scholar
Buerki, Andreas. 2019. Furiously fast: on the speed of change in formulaic language. Yearbook of Phraseology 10.1: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buerki, Andreas. 2020. Formulaic Language and Linguistic Change: A Data-Led Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter (ed.). 2015. Grammatical Change in English World-Wide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter and Yao, Xinyue. 2019. AusBrown: a new diachronic corpus of Australian English. ICAME Journal 43: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 211–221.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. www.english-corpora.org/coha/.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2012. Some methodological issues related to corpus-based investigations of recent syntactic changes in English. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 167–174.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Recent shifts with three nonfinite verbal complements in English: data from the 100-million-word Time corpus (1920s–2000s). In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, and Wallis, (eds.), pp. 46–67.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2020. English-Corpora.org: A guided tour. www.english-corpora.org/pdf/english-corpora.pdf.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In Brinton, (ed.), pp. 119–144.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2003. Log(ist)ic and simplistic S-curves. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–70.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2004. Do grammars change when they leak? In Kay, Christian (ed.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun and Wanner, Anja. 2020. Genre variation. In Aarts, , Bowie, and Popova, (eds.), pp. 654–672.Google Scholar
Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank R. (eds.). 2003. Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996. On the historical development of English retrospective verbs. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 71–79.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2007. Drift and the development of sentential complements in British and American English from 1700 to the present day. 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. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 161–235.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Michael and Seoane, Elena. 2012. Democratization. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 392–401.Google Scholar
Geeraert, Kristina and Newman, John. 2015. I haven’t drank in weeks: the use of past tense forms as past participles in English corpora. In Newman, John, Baayen, Harald and Rice, Sally (eds.), Corpus-Based Studies in Language Use, Language Learning, and Language Documentation. Leiden: Brill, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar
Hansen, Beke. 2018. Corpus Linguistics and Sociolinguistics: A Study of Variation and Change in the Modal Systems of World Englishes. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Frederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24.4: 385–401.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin and Mair, Christian. 2015. Grammatical change. In Biber, Douglas and Reppen, Randi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 180–200.Google 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 11.3: 437–474.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus‐Based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2001. What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-constructions. Studies in Language 25.1: 49–87.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2020. Change in grammar. In Aarts, , Bowie, and Popova, (eds.), pp. 581–603.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Gardner, Anne-Christine. 2017. Corpus-based approaches: watching English change. In Brinton, (ed.), pp. 96–130.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Leech, Geoffrey. 2012. ‘Small is beautiful’: on the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 175–188.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: the corpus‐based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 221–242.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja and Biewer, Carolin (eds.). 2007. Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kaatari, Henrik and Larsson, Tove. 2019. Using the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to study the syntactic development of I think and I’m sure. English Studies 100.6: 710–727.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. The development of comment clauses. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, and Wallis, (eds.), pp. 286–317.Google Scholar
Kastronic, Laura and Poplack, Shana. 2014. The (North) American English mandative subjunctive in the twenty-first century: revival or remnant? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20.2, Article 9. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss2/9.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Andrew. 2020. Web corpora. In Th. Gries, Stefan and Paquot, Magali (eds.), A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Cham: Springer, pp. 329–351.10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1985. Towards a theory of linguistic change. In Ballmer, Thomas T. (ed.), Linguistic Dynamics: Discourses, Procedures and Evolution. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 211–237.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1989. Invisible-hand theory and language evolution. Lingua 77.2: 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred and Schützler, Ole. 2013. Recent change and grammaticalization. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, and Wallis, (eds.), pp. 155–184.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania and Heine, Bernd. 2008. On the explanatory value of grammaticalization. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko and Rhee, Seongha. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2019. Register in historical linguistics. Register Studies 1.1: 136–167.10.1075/rs.18011.kytCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1994. Proliferation and option-cutting: the strong verb in the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. In Stein, Dieter and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.), Towards a Standard English: 1600–1800. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 81–113.Google Scholar
Laws, Jacqueline. 2023. A Constructional Account of Verb-Forming Suffixation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laws, Jacqueline, Ryder, Chris and Jaworska, Sylvia. 2017. A diachronic corpus-based study into the effects of age and gender on the usage patterns of verb-forming suffixation in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22.3: 375–402.10.1075/ijcl.22.3.04lawCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2000. Diachronic linguistics across a generation gap: from the 1960s to the 1990s. Paper read at the symposium ‘Grammar and Lexis’, University College London.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, , Krug, and Palmer, (eds.), pp. 223–240.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Recent grammatical change in English: data, description, theory. In Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 61–81.10.1163/9789004333710_005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2011. The modals ARE declining: reply to Neil Millar [2009]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 547–564.10.1075/ijcl.16.4.05leeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? On the declining frequency of modal auxiliaries in American and British English. In Marín‐Arrese, , Carretero, , Arús Hita, and van der Auwera, (eds.), pp. 95–115.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511642210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2005. Extending the possibilities of corpus‐based research on English in the twentieth century: a prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal 29: 83–98.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change and constancy in linguistic change: how grammatical usage in written English evolved in the period 1931–1991. In Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 173–200.10.1163/9789042025981_011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. (First published in 1982.)Google Scholar
Levin, Magnus. 2006. Collective nouns and language change. English Language and Linguistics 10: 321–343.10.1017/S1360674306001948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Magnus. 2013. The progressive verb in modern American English. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, and Wallis, (eds.), pp. 187–216.Google Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav and McEnery, Tony. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22.3: 319–344.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1995. Changing patterns of complementation and concomitant grammaticalisation of the verb help in present-day English. In Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258–272.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997a. Parallel corpora: a real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In Ljung, Magnus (ed.), Corpus-Based Studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997b. The spread of the going‐to‐future in written English: a corpus‐based investigation into language change in progress. In Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanislav (eds.), Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1537–1543.Google 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: 105–131.10.1017/S1360674302001065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006a. Nonfinite complement clauses in the nineteenth century: the case of remember. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–228.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006b. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation, and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2010. Grammaticalisation of new patterns of clausal subordination: ‘on (the) basis (that) + finite clause’ and ‘(on) account (of) + finite clause’ in present‐day English. In Mala, Markéta and Šaldová, Pavlína (eds.), … for thy speech bewrayeth thee: A Festschrift for Libuše Dušková. Prague: Charles University/Philosophical Faculty, pp. 153–168.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2012. From opportunistic to systematic use of the web as corpus: Do-support with got (to) in contemporary American English. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 245–255.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne. 1995. Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43.2: 111–122.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne. 1997. The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. In Böker, Uwe and Sauer, Hans (eds.), Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1996, Dresden. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 71–82.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian, Hundt, Marianne, Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2002. Short term diachronic shifts in part‐of-speech frequencies: a comparison of the tagged LOB and F‐LOB corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7: 245–264.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian and Leech, Geoffrey. 2021. Current changes in English syntax. In Aarts, Bas, McMahon, April and Hinrichs, Lars (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Second edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 249–276.Google Scholar
Marín‐Arrese, Juana I., Carretero, Marta, Hita, Jorge Arús and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2013. English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil. 2009. Modal verbs in Time: frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk, van Rooy, Bertus and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2014. Diachronic approaches to modality in world Englishes. Special issue, Journal of English Linguistics 42.1.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent changes in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14.1: 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Põldvere, Nele, Johansson, Victoria and Paradis, Carita. 2021a. On The London-Lund Corpus 2: design, challenges and innovations. English Language and Linguistics 25.3. 459–483.Google Scholar
Põldvere, Nele, Johansson, Victoria and Paradis, Carita. 2021b. Challenges of releasing audio material for spoken data: the case of the London-Lund Corpus 2. Research in Corpus Linguistics 9.1: 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rautionaho, Paula and Fuchs, Robert. 2021. Recent change in stative progressives: a collostructional investigation of British English in 1994 and 2014. English Language and Linguistics 25.1: 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah. 1991. The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: a case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66: 227–279.10.2307/455799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. Watching English grammar change: a case study on complement selection in British and American English. English Language and Linguistics 10: 31–48.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2011. Changes in Complementation in British and American English: Corpus‐Based Studies on Non‐finite Complements in Recent English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916/1959). Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert, in collaboration with Albert Reidlinger. Translated from the French by Wade Baskin. New York: The Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2020. English around the World: An Introduction. Cambridge Introductions to the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seggewiß, Friederike. 2013. Current changes in the English modals: a corpus‐based analysis of present‐day spoken English. PhD thesis, University of Freiburg. https://d-nb.info/1123480818/34.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. (Reprint 1812). London: Ward.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2002. Ever moving on? The progressive in recent British English. In Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.), New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 317–330.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2003a. A quirky progressive? A corpus-based exploration of the will + be + -ing construction in recent and present day British English. In Archer, Dawn, Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew and McEnery, Tony (eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2003: UCREL Technical Papers 16. Lancaster: Lancaster University, pp. 714–723.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2003b. Changes in modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In Facchinetti, , Krug, and Palmer, (eds.), pp. 241–266.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2005. A corpus-based investigation of recent change in the use of the progressive in British English. Doctoral thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas, Broccias, Cristiano and Waters, Cathleen. 2024. Addressing comparability and retrieval issues in conversation corpora: a case study on the Spoken British National Corpora (1994 and 2014), using the past perfect. Research in Corpus Linguistics 12.2. 80–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in Nineteenth-Century English: A Process of Integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2021. Syntactic Change in Late Modern English: Studies on Colloquialization and Densification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108564984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2011. Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In Heine, and Narrog, (eds.), pp. 19–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varela Pérez, Jose Ramon. 2007. Negation of main verb have: evidence of a change in progress in spoken and written British English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108: 223–246.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2009. Non-finite complements. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, Tim. 2017. The subjunctive in present-day English. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Wallis, Sean. 2021. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics Research: A New Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 2003. Enclave dialect communities in the south. In Stephen, J. Nagle and Sara, L. Sanders (eds.), English in the Southern United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1994. The mystery of the modal progressive. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 467–486.Google Scholar
Yao, Xinyue and Collins, Peter. 2019. Developments in Australian, British, and American English grammar from 1931 to 2006: an aggregate, comparative approach to dialectal variation and change. Journal of English Linguistics 47.2: 120–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Atkinson, Dwight. 1992. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: the case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics 13.4: 337–374.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: a sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society 25.3: 333–371.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 2001. Scientific discourse across history: a combined multi-dimensional/rhetorical analysis of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. In Conrad and Biber (eds.), pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Berber-Sardinha, Tony and Veirano-Pinto, Marcia (eds.). 2019. Multi-dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. New York: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2001. Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. In Conrad and Biber (eds.), pp. 200–214.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2008. Multi-dimensional approaches. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 822–854.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about register and genres? In O’Keeffe, Anne and McCarthy, Michael (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 241–254.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8.1: 9–37.10.1515/cllt-2012-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2019a. Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies 1.1: 42–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2019b. Multi-dimensional analysis: a historical synopsis. In Berber-Sardinha and Veirano-Pinto (eds.), pp. 11–26.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Burges, Dennis. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men. Journal of English Linguistics 28.1: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan. 2019 [2009]. Register, Genre, and Style. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres. Language 65.3: 487–517.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based genres from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 688–704.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1994. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Oostdijk, Nelleke and de Haan, Pieter (eds.), Corpus-Based Research into Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 201–222.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 253–275.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2011. Is conversation more grammatically complex than academic writing? In Konopka, Marek, Kubczak, Jacqueline, Mair, Christian, Šticha, František and Waßner, Ulrich Hermann (eds.), Grammatik und Korpora 2009: Dritte Internationale Konferenz. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2013. Being specific about historical change: the influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics 41.2: 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Jones, James K.. 2005. Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: discourse units in biology research articles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.2: 151–182.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Reppen, Randi (eds.). 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezina, Vaclac. 2018a. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezina, Vaclac. 2018b. Lancaster Stats Tools online. https://corpus-stats.lancs.ac.uk. Computer program.Google Scholar
Condi de Souza, Renata. 2014. Dimensions of variation in TIME magazine. In Berber-Sardinha, Tony and Veirano-Pinto, Marcia (eds.), Multi-dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–194.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: an example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8.3: 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: a comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In Conrad and Biber (eds.), pp. 94–107.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.). 2001. Variation in English: Multi-dimensional Studies. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2011. Persuasion markers and ideology in eighteenth century Corpus of English Philosophy Texts (CEPhiT). Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 17: 199–228.Google Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2016. Genre categorisation in CEPhiT. In Moskowich, Camiña Rioboo, Lareo and Crespo (eds.), pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
Crespo, Begoña. 2017. Creating an identity of persuasion in history texts. In Alonso-Almeida, Francisco (ed.), Stancetaking in Late Modern English Scientific Writing: Evidence from the Coruña Corpus. Valencia: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
Crespo, Begoña and Moskowich, Isabel. 2020. Astronomy, philosophy, life sciences and history texts: setting the scene for the study of modern scientific writing. English Studies 101.6: 665–684.Google Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2001. Genre in linguistic and related discourses. In Diller and Görlach (eds.), pp. 3–46.Google Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen and Görlach, Manfred (eds.). 2001. Towards a History of English as a History of Genres. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse. 2012. Style in nineteenth century fiction: a multi-dimensional analysis. Scientific Study of Literature 2.2: 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1992. Style and standardization in England: 1700–1900. In Machan, Tim W. and Scott, Charles T. (eds.), English in Its Social Contexts. Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 102–130.Google Scholar
Friginal, Eric. 2013. Twenty-five years of Biber’s multi-dimensional analysis: introduction to the special issue and an interview with Douglas Biber. Corpora 8.2: 137–152. Special issue, ‘Twenty-five years of Biber’s multi-dimensional analysis’.Google Scholar
Geisler, Christer. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: a multi-dimensional comparison. In Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, Christer. 2003. Gender-based variation in nineteenth-century English letter-writing. In Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 87–106.Google Scholar
González-Álvarez, Dolores and Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 1998. Texting the written evidence: on register analysis in late Middle English and early Modern English. Text 18.3: 321–348.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 2004. Text Types and the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2013a. Interview with Douglas Biber. Journal of English Linguistics 41.4: 359–379.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2013b. More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora 8.2: 153–181. Special issue ‘Twenty-five years of Biber’s multi-dimensional analysis’.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany and Biber, Douglas. 2018. Academic writing as a locus of grammatical change: the development of phrasal complexity features. In Whitt, Richard J. (ed.), Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1988. On the language of physical science. In Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.), Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features. London: Printer Publishers, pp. 162–178.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Turo and Taavitsainen, Irma. 2019. Towards new knowledge: the corpus of Late Modern English Medical Texts. In Taavitsainen and Hiltunen (eds.), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: the corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4.2: 221–242.Google Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba. 2007. Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla and Upton, Thomas A. (eds.), Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–120.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Smitterberg, Erik. 2015. Diachronic registers. In Biber and Reppen (eds.), pp. 330–345.Google Scholar
Lange, Claudia. 2012. Text types, language change, and historical corpus linguistics. In Lange, Claudia, Weber, Beatrix and Wolf, Göran (eds.), Communicative Spaces: Variation, Contact, and Change. Papers in Honour of Ursula Schaefer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 401–416.Google Scholar
Lee, David Y. W. 2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology 5.3: 37–72.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Carey. 1998. The Evolution of English Prose, 1700–1800: Style, Politeness, and Print Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1993. Variation and Change in Early Scottish Prose: Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2001. Genre, text type, style, register: a terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies 5.2: 131–138. Special issue ‘Early Modern English text types’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2008. Variation and change in the writings of 17th-century scientists. In Dury, Richard, Gotti, Maurizio and Dossena, Marina (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2009. The influence of the Royal Society on 17th-century scientific writing. ICAME Journal 33: 65–87.Google Scholar
Monaco, Leida Maria. 2016a. Abstractness as diachronic variation in CEPhiT: Biber’s Dimension 5 applied. In Moskowich, Camiña-Rioboo, Lareo and Crespo (eds.), pp. 99–121.Google Scholar
Monaco, Leida Maria. 2016b. Was late Modern English scientific writing impersonal? Comparing philosophy and life sciences texts from the Coruña Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21.4: 499–526.Google Scholar
Monaco, Leida Maria. 2017. A multidimensional analysis of Late Modern English scientific texts from the Coruña Corpus. PhD thesis, Universidade da Coruña. http://hdl.handle.net/2183/19322.Google Scholar
Monaco, Leida Maria 2019. Exploring the narrative dimension in late Modern English history texts. In Moskowich, Crespo, Puente-Castelo and Monaco (eds.), pp. 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel. 2013. Eighteenth-century female authors: women and science in the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33.4: 467–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel, Camiña Rioboo, Gonzalo, Lareo, Inés and Crespo, Begoña (eds.). 2016. ‘The Conditioned and the Unconditioned’: Late Modern English Texts on Philosophy. Including a CD-ROM containing A Corpus of English Philosophy Texts (CEPhiT). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel and Crespo, Begoña (eds.). 2012. Astronomy ‘Playne and Simple’: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel, Crespo, Begoña, Puente-Castelo, Luis and Monaco, Leida Maria (eds.). 2019. Writing History in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel, Lareo, Inés and Camiña, Gonzalo (eds.). 2021. ‘All Families and Genera’: Exploring the Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel and Monaco, Leida Maria. 2014. Abstraction as a means of expressing reality: women writing science in Late Modern English. In Gotti, Maurizio and Giannoni, Davide (eds.), Corpus Analysis for Descriptive and Pedagogical Purposes. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 203–224.Google Scholar
Nini, Andrea. 2019. The multi-dimensional analysis tagger. In Berber-Sardinha and Veirano-Pinto (eds.), pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1999. Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810–1995). English for Specific Purposes 18.3: 279–305.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik and Kytö, Merja. 2015. English genres in diachronic corpus linguistics. In Shaw, Philip A., Erman, Britt, Melchers, Gunnel and Sundkvist, Peter (eds.), From Clerks to Corpora: Essays on the English Language Yesterday and Today. Essays in Honour of Nils-Lennart Johannesson. London: Stockholm University Press, pp. 117–134.10.16993/bab.gCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1997. Genre conventions: personal affect in fiction and non-fiction in Early Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 185–266.10.1515/9783110811148.185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2016. Genre dynamics in the history of English. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–285.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Hiltunen, Turo (eds.). 2019. Late Modern English Medical Texts: Writing Medicine in the Eighteenth Century. Including the LMEMT Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi. 2013. The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing (1375–1800): a register-specific diachronic corpus for studying the history of scientific writing. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.), Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14). Helsinki: VARIENG. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/14/taavitsainen_pahta/.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi, Leskinen, Noora, Ratia, Maura and Suhr, Carla. 2002. Analysing scientific thought-styles: what can linguistic research reveal about the history of science? In Rissanen, Matti, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna and Nurmi, Arja (eds.), Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 251–270.Google Scholar
Valle, Ellen. 1996. A scientific community and its texts: a historical discourse study. In Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise, Linell, P. and Nordberg, Bengt (eds.), The Construction of Professional Discourse. London: Longman, pp. 76–98.Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, William J. 1998. Relative clauses in spectroscopic articles in the Physical Review, beginnings and 1980. Written Communication 15.2: 170–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westin, Ingrid and Geisler, Christer. 2002. A multi-dimensional study of diachronic variation in British newspaper editorials. ICAME Journal 26: 133–152.Google Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1994. The place of genre in the corpus. In Kytö, Merja, Rissanen, Matti and Wright, Susan (eds.), Corpora across the Centuries: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, St Catharine’s College Cambridge. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 101–107.10.1163/9789004657311_015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Allan, Kathryn. Forthcoming. Historical semantics. In Wright, Laura and Hickey, Raymond (eds.), New Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume I: Context, Contact and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 307–334.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Chichester: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature. In Bianchi, Claudia (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 65–100.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2010. Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CX.3: 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2012. Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29.4: 607–623.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175–176: 154–166.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2019. Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, Kate, Clark, Billy and Carston, Robyn (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–162.10.1017/9781108290593.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2021. Polysemy, pragmatics and sense conventions. Language and Mind 36.1: 108–133.Google Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsene. 1886. The Life of Words as Symbols of Ideas. Translator unnamed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.Google Scholar
Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership (EEBO-TCP). 2015. ProQuest.https://proquest.libguides.com/eebopqp.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Karl-Otto. 1910. Die Bedeutung des Wortes: Aufsätze aus dem Grenzgebiet der Sprachpsychologie und Logik. Second edition. Leipzig: Avenarius.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Palmer, Frank R. (ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959. London: Longman, pp. 168–205.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2009. The sociopragmatic of a lovers’ spat: the case of the eighteenth-century courtship letters of Mary Pierrepont and Edward Wortley. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10.2: 215–237. Reprinted in Jonathan Culpeper (ed.). 2011. Historical Sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/jhp.10.2.04fitCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2015. Ideology, race and place in historical constructions of belonging in the case of Zimbabwe. English Language and Linguistics 19.2: 327–354.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2016. Semantic and pragmatic change. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 256–270.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2017. When natives became Africans: a historical sociolinguistic study of semantic change in colonial discourse. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 3.1: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2021. Looking for concepts in Early Modern English: hypothesis building and the uses of encyclopaedic knowledge and pragmatic work. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 22.2: 282–300.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2022. From constellations to discursive concepts; or: the historical pragmatic construction of meaning in Early Modern English. Transactions of the Philological Society 120.3: 489–506.10.1111/1467-968X.12238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan, Robinson, Justyna A., Alexander, Marc, Hine, Iona C., Mehl, Seth and Dallachy, Fraser. 2017. Linguistic DNA: investigating conceptual change in Early Modern English discourse. Studia Neophilologica 89: 21–38.10.1080/00393274.2017.1333891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan and Mehl, Seth. 2022. Volatile discursive concepts: co-occurrence quads as indicators of semantic and pragmatic change in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17.4: 428–450.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haase, Friedrich. 1874–1880. Vorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenschaft, gehalten ab 1840. Leipzig: Simmel.Google Scholar
Hecht, Max. 1888. Die griechische Bedeutungslehre: eine Aufgabe der klassischen Philologie. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
King James Bible. 1611. Retrieved from www.proquest.com/books/king-james-bible/docview/2138583024/se–2.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Moritz. 1856–1857. Das Leben der Seele in Monographien über seine Erscheinung und Gesetze. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Palmer, Frank R. (ed.), Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–115.Google Scholar
Mehl, Seth. 2022. Discursive quads: new kinds of lexical co-occurrence data with linguistic concept modelling. Transactions of the Philological Society 120.3: 474–488.Google Scholar
Moody, Michael E. 2004. Browne, Robert (1550?–1633). Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi-org.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/3695.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte. 1992. Semantic Theories in Europe 1830–1930: From Etymology to Contextuality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1891. Principles of the History of Language. [Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte] Trans. by H. A. Strong. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Pragmatics and semantics. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 442–462.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. 1977. Hermeneutik und Kritik; mit einem Anhang sprachphilosophischer Texte Schleiermachers. Edited with an introduction by Frank, Manfred. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Stout, G. F. 1891. Thought and language. Mind 62: 181–205.10.1093/mind/os-XVI.62.181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57: 31–65.10.2307/414841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1963. The Principles of Semantics. Glasgow: Glasgow University Publications.Google Scholar
Whitlock, Gillian. 2000. The Intimate Empire: Reading Women’s Autobiography. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horne, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think- an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Zienkowski, Jan, Östman, Jan-Ola and Vershueren, Jef (eds.), Discourse Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–246.10.1075/hoph.8.13aijCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji. 2000. The grammaticalization of the verb pray. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139507110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn (eds.). 2004. What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers. In van Kemenade and Los (eds.), pp. 307–334.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), pp. 285–314.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: the origin of metalinguistic and politeness phenomena. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 270–290.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2020. The development and pragmatic function of a non-inference marker: this is not to say (that). In Rautionaho, Paula, Nurmi, Arja and Klemola, Juhani (eds.), Corpora and the Changing Society: Studies in the Evolution of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 251–275.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. 2018. The constituent order of hwæt-clauses in Old English. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30.1: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: as it were, so to speak, and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14.2: 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia and Arnovick, Leslie. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discoursisation. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), pp. 165–192.Google Scholar
CMEPV= Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. 2006. Humanities Text Initiative, University of Michigan. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/.Google Scholar
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English. www.english-corpora.org/coha/.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Like and language ideology: disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82.4: 386–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, De Wolf, Simon and Van linden, An. 2015. The development of (there/it is/I have) no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16.1: 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defour, Tine and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2010. ‘Positive appraisal’ as a core meaning of well: a corpus-based analysis in Middle and Early Modern English data. English Studies 91.6: 643–673.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16.1: 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona. 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57.1: 3–28.10.1556/ALing.57.2010.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 403–425.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49.2: 365–390.10.1515/ling.2011.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOEWC = Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. 2009. Antonette diPaolo Healey (comp.) with John Price Wilkin and Xin Xiang. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project. https://doe.artsci.utoronto.ca/?p=498.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1972. Old English adverbial þa- an action marker? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1.3: 90–96.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik and Wårvik, Brita. 1987. Old English þa, temporal chains, and narrative structure. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio and Bernini, Giuliano (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i Modern Språkvetenskap. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 76–93.Google Scholar
Finell, Anne. 1989. Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 653–656.10.1016/0378-2166(89)90054-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Formal and Functional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette and Stein, Dieter (eds.). 2000. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: from stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6.4: 427–448.10.1177/1461445604046585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 359–374.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 2: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, Kemps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An and Brems, Liselotte. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–156.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, Himmelmann and Wiemer (eds.), pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Fischer (ed.), pp. 21–41.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Hegedüs, Irén and Fodor, Alexandra (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–175.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: the case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47.2: 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51.6: 1205–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania and Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Himmelmann and Wiemer (eds.), pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. 1, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1.1: 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). 2010. Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35.4: 848–893.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In van Kemenade and Los (eds.), pp. 224–248.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou (eds.). 2006. The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi and Rissanen, Matti. 2002. We give you to wit: semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1995]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Third edition. Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/88.10.26530/OAPEN_603353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 224–249.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectives in the History of English. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2007. From temporal to contrastive and causal: the emergence of connective after all. In Celle, Agnès and Huart, Ruth (eds.), Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 88–99.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49.2: 415–443.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), pp. 127–163.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014. On the origin of parenthetical constructions: epistemic/evidential parentheticals with seem and impersonal think. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H. and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–212.Google Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula. 2012. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2012. I’m afraid I’ll have to stop now … Your time is up, I'm afraid: corpus studies and the development of attitudinal markers. In Carla Suhr and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Vol. 11. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/11/mazzon/.Google Scholar
McColm, Daniel and Trousdale, Graeme. 2019. Whatever happened to whatever? In Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, van Bergen, Linda and Hollmann, Willem B. (eds.), Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–104.Google Scholar
MED = Middle English Dictionary. 2000–2018. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. Frances McSparran et al. (eds.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: on the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 141–195.10.1515/flih.2006.27.1-2.141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palandar-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–272.10.1075/tsl.37.11tabCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. 1, pp. 313–329.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–271.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995 (version of 11/97). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the thirteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK, August 1995. www.researchgate.net/publication/228691469_The_role_of_discourse_markers_in_a_theory_of_grammaticalization .Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17.1: 26–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English: A Historical Constructionist Perspective on Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The status of hwæt in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 17.3: 465–488.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: a specific type of language change. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunctions þa and þonne in Middle English: a discourse-pragmatic study of then and when in early English Saints’ Lives. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 345–357.Google Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 2013. Perspectives on Narrative Discourse Markers: Focus on Old English þa. Turku, Finland: Åbo Akademi University.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 355–370.Google 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
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.
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.
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.