Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T00:52:04.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English genitive variation – the state of the art1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2014

ANETTE ROSENBACH
ANETTE ROSENBACH*
Affiliation:
Tanagra Wines, PO Box 92, 6708 McGregor, Western Cape, South Africaanette@tanagra-wines.co.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a survey of quantitative research on the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. It provides a detailed and critical review of the methodological problems and advances as well as major findings and how these have been treated in theoretical frameworks. The article concludes with a discussion of objectives and challenges for future research. It is argued that research into English genitive variation not only enhances our knowledge of this specific case of syntactic variation but also helps us to further understand the mechanisms of syntactic alternations in general.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2: Genitive variation in English , July 2014 , pp. 215 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

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

Footnotes

1

This article, written as part of the project ‘The development of syntactic alternations’ (National Science Foundation, grant no. BCS-1025602), has benefited greatly from discussions with Joan Bresnan, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, Christoph Wolk, Marilyn Ford, Jason Grafmiller, Sali Tagliamonte and Simon Todd. I’m grateful to two anonymous ELL reviewers and to the editors of this special issue for many helpful suggestions. Thanks also to the University of Paderborn for access to their library services.

References

Aissen, Judith & Bresnan, Joan. 2002. Optimality theory and typology. Course taught at the DGfS/LSA summer school ‘Formal and functional linguistics’, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 14 July – 3 August 2002. Course material online: www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/CDV/CDAissen.htm.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1997. The origins of the ‘group genitive’ in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95, 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2008. Genitives in early English: Typology and evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 2013. The marker of the English ‘group genitive’ is a special clitic, not an inflection. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 193–218. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anschutz, Arlea. 1997. How to choose a possessive noun phrase in four easy steps. Studies in Language 21 (1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto & Fong, Vivienne. 2004. Variation, ambiguity and noun classes in English. Lingua 114 (9–10), 1253–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76 (1), 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analysing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse. In Aitchison, Jean & Lewis, Diana (eds.), New media language, 169–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn & Levelt, Willem. 1994. Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 945–84. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.). 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz & Scott, Alan. 2013. Expression of possession in English. The significance of the right edge. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 123–48. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2011. Acquiring syntactic variation in English: A cross-constructional study. Plenary talk presented at ICLaVE 6, 29 June 2011, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86 (1), 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1995. Sociolinguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1998. How metaphors affect grammatical coding: The Saxon genitive in computer manuals. English Language and Linguistics 2 (1), 121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daelmans, Walter, Zavrel, Jakub, van der Sloot, Ko & van den Bosch, Antal. 2010. TiMBL: Tilburg memory based learner, version 6.3, reference guide. Technical Report ILK 10-01, ILK Research Group, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Dahl, Lisa. 1971. The s-genitive with non-personal nouns in modern English journalistic style. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72, 140–72.Google Scholar
Ehret, Katharina. 2012. The role of rhythm as a factor in historical genitive variability. Manuscript, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Ehret, Katharina, Wolk, Christoph & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. This volume. Quirky quadratures: On rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set.Google Scholar
Feist, Jim. 2012. What controls the ‘genitive variation’ in Present-day English? Studies in Language 36 (2), 261–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Bresnan, Joan. 2013. Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 295–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Bresnan, Joan. Forthcoming. Generating data as a proxy for unavailable corpus data: The contextualized sentence completion task. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Garnsey, Susan. 2006. Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities. Language 82 (2), 405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. Forthcoming. Variation in English genitives across modality and genre. English Language and Linguistics 18 (3).Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2002. Evidence in linguistics: Three approaches to genitives in English. In Brend, Ruth M., Sullivan, William J. & Lommel, Arle R. (eds.), LACUS Forum XXVIII: What constitutes evidence in linguistics?, 17–31. Fullerton, CA: LACUS.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Roger. 1981. Toward an account of the possessive constructions: NP's and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17, 247–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional discourse grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & 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), 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 1997. Has English been catching up with AmE over the past thirty years? In Ljung, Magnus (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English: Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17), Stockholm, May 15–19, 1996, 135–51. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 1998. New Zealand English grammar: Fact or fiction? A corpus-based study in morphosyntactic variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4, 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Animacy in early New Zealand English. English World-Wide 33 (3), 241–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. The winner takes it all – almost. Cumulativity in grammatical variation. Linguistics 44 (5), 937–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahr Sorheim, Mette. 1980. The s-genitive in present-day English. PhD dissertation, Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 1980. On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of OE nominal case inflections and the ME reanalysis of -es as his. In Traugott, Elizabeth C., Labrum, Rebecca & Sheperd, Susan (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 243–53. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23, 265–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. 2013. A variationist approach to cross-register language variation and change. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Downloadable at http://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/43604.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. This volume. On the genitive's trail: Data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. [1927] 1961. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. III. London and Copenhagen: Unwin/Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. [1949] 1961. A Modern English Grammar on historical principles, vol. VII. London and Copenhagen: Unwin/Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas. 1993. The genitive versus the of-construction in newspaper language. In Jucker, Andreas (ed.), The noun phrase in English: Its structure and variability, 121–36. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Juvonen, Teo. 2010. Genitive variation in letters, history writing and sermons in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Lenker, Ursula, Huber, Judith & Mailhammer, Robert (eds.), English historical linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008, vol. I: The history of English verbal and nominal constructions, 197–214. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. Possessive constructions in English: The proposal's supporters or the supporters of the proposal? In Hannay, Mike & Steen, Gerard J. (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar, 59–82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2011. The prenominal possessive in English, Dutch and German: Constraints, preferences and principles. Paper presented at the workshop on ‘Genitive Variation in English’, ISLE 2. Boston, June 2011.Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 1997. Dialect evidence for the loss of genitive inflection in English. English Language and Linguistics 1, 350–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. Adnominal possession. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20.1,2), vol. 2, 960–70. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Adnominal possession in the European languages: Form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55, 141–72.Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf. 2003. Genitive and of-construction in modern written English: Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8, 169–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred, Schlüter, Julia & Rosenbach, Anette. 2013. Introduction. Investigating language variation and change. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Francis, Brian & Xu, Xfueng. 1994. The use of computer corpora in the textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories. In Fuchs, Catherine & Victorri, Bernard (eds.), Continuity in linguistic semantics, 57–76. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Changes in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 1997. The s-genitive and the of-construction in different types of English texts. In Fries, Udo, Müller, Viviane & Schneider, Peter (eds.), From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English corpus linguistics, 21–32. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4, 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohse, Barbara, Hawkins, John & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb–particle constructions. Language 80 (2), 238–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, Janet, Bock, Kathryn & Kelly, Michael. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25, 188–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunberg, Geoffrey & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 3, 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Anttila, Arto, Fong, Vivienne & Maling, Joan. 2004. Differential possessor expression in English: Re-evaluating animacy and topicality effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Boston, January 2004.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Maling, Joan & Skarabela, Barbora. 2013. Nominal categories and the expression of possession. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 89–121. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John. 2011. Genitive coordinations with personal pronouns. English Language and Linguistics 15 (2), 363–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John & Berlage, Eva. 2011. The effect of semantic relations on genitive variation: Relations hierarchy. Paper presented at ISLE 2, Boston, MA, 17–21 June 2011.Google Scholar
Payne, John & Berlage, Eva. This volume. Genitive variation: The niche role of the oblique genitive.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Birdsong, David. 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1992. From cases to adpositions. In Pantaleo, Nicola (ed.), Aspects of English diachronic linguistics: Papers read at the second National Conference on History of English, Naples, 28–29 April 1989, 19–61. Fasano: Schena.Google Scholar
Raab-Fischer, Roswitha. 1995. Löst der Genitive die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützte Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43, 123–32.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2001. The English s-genitive: Animacy, topicality, and possessive relationship in a diachronic perspective. In Brinton, Laurel (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999, 277–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 379–412. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2004. The English s-genitive: A case of degrammaticalization? In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization, 73–96. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81 (3), 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. Descriptive genitives in English. English Language and Linguistics 10 (1), 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2007a. Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11 (1), 143–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2007b. Exploring constructions on the web: a case study. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the Web, 167–90. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Animacy and grammatical variation – findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118, 151–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2009. Identifying noun modifiers in English. Manuscript, University of Paderborn (downloadable at: http://freelancehaven.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/1/1/5011326/identifying_noun_modifiers_in_english_ms_2009.pdf).Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2013. Combining elicitation data with corpus data. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 278–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette, Stein, Dieter & Vezzosi, Letizia. 2000. On the history of the s-genitive. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard & McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 183–210. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette & Vezzosi, Letizia. 2000. Genitive constructions in Early Modern English: New evidence from a corpus analysis. In Sornicola, Rosanna, Poppe, Erich & Shisha-Halevy, Ariel (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time, 285–307. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Aimo. 1997. The genitives of the relative pronouns in present-day English. In Cheshire, Jenny & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Taming the vernacular: From dialect to written standard language, 152–69. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie & Grafmiller, Jason. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Paper presented at annual meeting of the LSA, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard & Bresnan, Joan. Forthcoming. Rhythm's role in genitive and dative construction choice in spoken English. In Vogel, Ralf & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Rhythm in phonetics, grammar and cognition. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Siemund, Rainer. 1993. Aspects of language change in progress: A corpus-based study of British Newspaper English in 1961 and 1991. MA thesis, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Stahl, Leon. 1927. Der adnominale Genitiv und sein Ersatz im Mittelenglischen und Frühneuenglischen. Giessener Beiträge 3, 1–35.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 413–44. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svartengren, Hilding. 1949. The s-genitive of non-personal nouns in present-day English. Studier i Modern Spraekvatenskap [Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology] 17, 139–80.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte & Perisman, Yves (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141–66. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 59–88. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi & Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Rosenbach, Anette, Bresnan, Joan, & Wolk, Christoph. Forthcoming. Culturally conditioned language change? A multi-variate analysis of genitive constructions in ARCHER. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2001. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, Peter & Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 729–63. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2010. A sociolinguistic perspective on dative and genitive variability: Canadian English. Presented at the Freiburg Workshop on Probabilistic Syntax, Freiburg, Germany, 21–24 March.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Jarmasz, Lidia. 2008. Variation and change in the English genitive: A sociolinguistic perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, 3–6 January 2008.Google Scholar
Thomas, Russell. 1931. Syntactical processes involved in the development of the adnominal periphrastic genitive in the English language. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Thomas, Russell. 1953. Notes on the inflected genitive in modern American prose. College English 14, 236–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmer, Benno Johan. 1939. The place of the attributive noun-genitive in Anglo-Saxon. English Studies 21, 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bosch, Antal & Bresnan, Joan. 2014. Modelling dative alternations of individual children. Manuscript, Radboud University Nijmegen and Stanford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 119–54. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30 (3), 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zachrisson, Robert Eugen. 1920. Grammatical changes in present-day English. Studier i Modern Spraekvetenskap [Stockholm Studies in Modern Philology] 7, 19–61.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carlette, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, O’Connor, Mary Catherine & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Webber, Bonnie & Byron, Donna (eds.), 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 118–25. East Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23, 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar