Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Annette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.). Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 39–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Tamba, Irène. 2013. Autour du concept d’intensification. Langue française 177 (1): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2002. ‘Can innocent people be guilty?’ A sociopragmatic analysis of examination transcripts from the Salem witchcraft trials. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 3 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2014. Historical pragmatics: Evidence from the Old Bailey. Transactions of the Philological Society 112 (2): 259–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bäcklund, Ulf. 1973. The collocation of adverbs of degree in English. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Barnfield, Kate and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2010. Intensifiers on Tyneside: Longitudinal developments and new trends. English World-Wide 31 (3): 252–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie and Bauer, Winifred. 2002. Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders. Journal of English Linguistics 30 (3): 244–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in modern times. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.). The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–98. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernaisch, Tobias. 2014. A corpus-based study of intensifiers in Late Modern English. A paper presented at the 35th conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME), University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, Jean and Lewis, Diana M. (eds.). New media language, 169–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Burges, Jená. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1): 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, with Egbert, Jesse, Gray, Bethany, Oppliger, Rahel, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 351–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65 (3): 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 688–704. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle 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, 253–75. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.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): 223–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Gray, Bethany. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 314–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Blanco-Suárez, Zeltia. 2020. Two sides of the same coin? Tracking the history of the intensifiers deadly and mortal. In Rautionaho, Paula, Nurmi, Arja, and Klemola, Juhani (eds.). Corpora and the changing society: Studies in the evolution of English, 169–97. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bordet, Lucile and Jamet, Denis. 2015. Degré et intensification: Essai de typologie. Anglophonia: French Journal of English Linguistics 20, n.p. https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.549. Last accessed on 23 July 2023.Google Scholar

Borsay, Peter. 2002. Urban life and culture. In Dickinson, H. T. (ed.). A companion to eighteenth-century Britain, 196–208. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Borst, Eugen. 1902. Die Gradadverbien im Englischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google 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): 221–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brezina, Vaclav, Robbie, Love, and Karin, Aijmer. 2018. Corpus linguistics and sociolinguistics: Introducing the Spoken BNC2014. In Brezina, Vaclav, Love, Robbie, and Aijmer, Karin (eds.). Corpus approaches to contemporary British speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the Spoken BNC2014, 3–9. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 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, 307–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2021. ‘He loved his father but next to adored his mother’: Nigh(ly), near, and next (to) as downtoners. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (1): 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide (version 1.1). 2018. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/doc/BNC2014manual.pdf. Last accessed on 14 October 2022; see also BNC.Google Scholar

Brorström, Sverker. 1987. Adverbial intensifiers in Swift’s Journal to Stella. Studier i modern språkvetenskap. Ny serie 8: 33–41.Google Scholar

Brown, LeAnn and Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2012. A really interesting story: The influence of narrative in linguistic change. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18 (2). http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol18/iss2/2. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchstaller, Isabelle and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2006. The lady was al demonyak: Historical aspects of Adverb all. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2): 345–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bürkner, Paul-Christian. 2017. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cacchiani, Silvia. 2006. Desperately, utterly and other intensifiers: On their inclusion and definition in Dr Johnson’s Dictionary. Textus: English Studies in Italy 19 (1): 217–36.Google Scholar

Caffi, Claudia. 1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7): 881–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caffi, Claudia and Janney, Richard W.. 1994. Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22 (3–4): 325–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carli, Linda L. 1990. Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 941–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, Bob, Gelman, Andrew, Hoffman, Matthew D., Lee, Daniel, Goodrich, Ben, et al. 2017. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software 76 (1): n.p. www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v076i01. Last accessed on 27 November 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2006. Compiled by Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University); see https://varieng.helsinki.fi/CoRD/corpora/CED/. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2008. Historical corpora. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.). Corpus linguistics: An international handbook. Volume 1, 242–59. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2011. Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2019. Drinking and crime. Negotiating intoxication in courtroom discourse, 1720 to 1913. In Fanego, Teresa and Rodríguez-Puente, Paula (eds.). Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse, 261–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2020. Epistemic adverbs in the Old Bailey Corpus. In Jonsson, Ewa and Larsson, Tove (eds.). Voices past and present – studies of involved, speech-related and spoken texts, 133–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2021. Murder in the press: Representations of Old Bailey murder trials in newspapers. In Brownlees, Nicholas (ed.). The role of context in the production and reception of historical news discourse, 107–28. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia, Jonsson, Ewa, and Kytö, Merja. 2020. Entirely innocent: A historical sociopragmatic analysis of maximizers in the Old Bailey Corpus. English Language and Linguistics 24 (4): 855–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claridge, Claudia, Jonsson, Ewa, and Kytö, Merja. 2021. A little something goes a long way: Little in the Old Bailey Corpus. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (1): 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claridge, Claudia and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Non-standard language in earlier English. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.). Varieties of English in writing: The written word as linguistic evidence, 15–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claridge, Claudia and Kytö, Merja. 2014a. ‘You are a bit of a sneak’: Exploring a degree modifier in the Old Bailey Corpus. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.). Late Modern English syntax, 239–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia and Kytö, Merja. 2014b. I had lost sight of them then for a bit, but I went on pretty fast: Two degree modifiers in the Old Bailey Corpus. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H., and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.). Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 29–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clifford-Amos, Terence. 1995. Some observations on the language of Pride and prejudice. Language and Literature 20: 1–10.Google Scholar

CLMETEV = The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (extended version). 2006. Compiled by Hendrik De Smet. Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven. Download: https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1993. Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language. Second edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1996. Women talk: Conversation between women friends. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

COHA = The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. 2010–. Compiled by Mark Davies; see https://varieng.helsinki.fi/CoRD/corpora/COHA/. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Collins, Daniel E. 2001. Reanimated voices: Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo and Juan, M. Hernández-Campoy (eds.). 2005. An issue on Sociolinguistics and the history of English: Perspectives and problems. International Journal of English Studies 5 (1).Google Scholar

Corrigan, Karen P., Buchstaller, Isabelle, Mearns, Adam, and Moisl, Hermann. 2012. The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. Newcastle University. https://research.ncl.ac.uk/decte. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Cotterill, Janet (ed.). 2007. The language of sexual crime. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cressy, David. 1980. Literacy and the social order. Reading and writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2010. Historical sociopragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). Historical pragmatics, 69–94. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2000. Gender voices in the spoken interaction of the past: A pilot study based on Early Modern English trial proceedings. In Kastovsky, Dieter and Mettinger, Arthur (eds.). The history of English in a social context: A contribution to historical sociolinguistics, 53–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cumming, Geoff. 2009. Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Statistics in Medicine 28: 205–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cumming, Geoff. 2012. Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cumming, Geoff and Calin-Jageman, Robert. 2017. Introduction to the new statistics: Estimation, open science, and beyond. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cumming, Geoff and Finch, Sue. 2005. Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist 60: 170–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Curzan, Anne. 2012. The electronic life of texts: Insights from corpus linguistics for all fields of English. In Kytö, Merja (ed.). English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths, 9–21. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. Stability, stasis and change. The longue durée of intensification. Diachronica 32 (4): 449–93.Google Scholar

D’Cruze, Shani. 2004. The family. In Williams, Chris (ed.). A companion to nineteenth-century Britain, 253–72. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Devereaux, Simon. 2007. From sessions to newspaper? Criminal trial reporting, the nature of crime, and the London press, 1770–1800. London Journal 32 (1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele and Wischer, Ilse. 2002. Introduction. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). New reflections on grammaticalization, ix–xiii. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1 (1): 19–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra, Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dodsworth, Robin. 2011. Social class. In Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, and Kerswill, Paul E. (eds.). The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics, 192–207. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doty, Kathleen L. 2007. Telling tales: The role of scribes in constructing the discourse of the Salem witchcraft trials. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (1): 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doty, Kathleen L. 2010. Courtroom discourse. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). Historical pragmatics, 621–50. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Durrell, Martin. 2015. ‘Representativeness’, ‘Bad Data’, and legitimate expectations: What can an electronic historical corpus tell us that we didn’t actually know already (and how)? In Gippert, Jost and Gehrke, Ralf (eds.). Historical corpora: Challenges and perspectives, 13–33. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An inquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope. 1989. The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1 (3): 245–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018a. About the Proceedings – Publishing history of the Proceedings, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 11 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018b. About the Proceedings – The value of the Proceedings as a historical source, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 11 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018c. Historical background – History of the Old Bailey courthouse, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018d. Crime, justice and punishment – Trial procedures, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018e. Historical background – Gender in the Proceedings, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018f. Crime, justice and punishment – Crimes tried at the Old Bailey, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018g. About the Proceedings – Ordinary of Newgate’s Accounts, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018h. London and its hinterlands – A population history, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018i. Crime, justice and punishment – Judges and juries, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 11 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018j. London and its hinterlands – London, 1800–1913, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 11 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018k. About the Proceedings – Associated records, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 11 March 2023.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim, and Shoemaker, Robert. 2018l. London and its hinterlands – London, 1715–1760, Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt. 2014. There is no such thing as a free combination: A usage-based study of specific construals in adverb–adjective combinations. English Language and Linguistics 18 (1): 109–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas and Wilkins, David. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76 (3): 546–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2006. Words in English Record Office documents of the early 1800s. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.). Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change, 56–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkenstaedt, Thomas, Leisi, Ernst, and Wolff, Dieter. 1970. A chronological English dictionary: Listing 80,000 words in order of their earliest known occurrence. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Fiorentini, Ilaria and Andrea, Sansò. 2017. Intensifiers between grammar and pragmatics: A lesson from a language-contact situation. In Napoli, Maria and Ravetto, Miriam (eds.). Exploring intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives, 173–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2016. Semantic and pragmatic change. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 256–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1980. Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4 (4): 341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Mihatsch, Wiltrud, and Schneider, Stefan (eds.). New approaches to hedging, 15–34. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940. American English grammar: The grammatical structure of Present-day American English with especial reference to social differences or class dialects. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Fuchs, Robert. 2017. Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men? Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (3): 345–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuchs, Robert. 2021. Sociolinguistic variation in intensifier usage in Indian and British English: Gender and language in the Inner and Outer Circle. In Bernaisch, Tobias (ed.). Gender in World Englishes, 47–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fuchs, Robert and Ulrike, Gut. 2016. Register variation in intensifier usage across Asian Englishes. In Pichler, Heike (ed.). Discourse-pragmatic variation and change in English: New methods and insights, 185–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ghesquière, Lobke. 2017. Intensification and focusing: The case of pure(ly) and mere(ly). In Napoli, Maria and Ravetto, Miriam (eds.). Exploring intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives, 33–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

González-Díaz, Victorina. 2008. Recent developments in English intensifiers: The case of very much. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 221–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

González-Díaz, Victorina. 2021. Intensificatory tautology in the history of English: A corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (2): 182–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1970. Verb-intensifier collocations in English: An experimental approach. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1974. Some verb–intensifier collocations in American and British English. American Speech 49 (1/2): 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grund, Peter J. 2007a. From tongue to text: The transmission of the Salem witchcraft examination records. American Speech 82 (2): 119–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grund, Peter J. 2007b. The anatomy of correction: Additions, cancellations, and changes in the documents of the Salem witchcraft trials. Studia Neophilologica 79 (1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grund, Peter J. 2021. The sociopragmatics of stance: Community, language, and the witness depositions from the Salem witch trials. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gunn, Simon. 2004. Urbanization. In Williams, Chris (ed.). A companion to nineteenth-century Britain, 238–52. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Guy, Gregory R. 2011. Language, social class, and status. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.). The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics, 159–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Christian, M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. Third edition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Schilling, Natalie. 2012. The application of the quantitative paradigm to historical sociolinguistics: Problems with the generalizability principle. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo (eds.). The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 63–79. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hessner, Tanja and Gawlitzek, Ira. 2017. Totally or slightly different? A Spoken BNC2014-based investigation of female and male usage of intensifiers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (3): 403–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewitt, Martin. 2004. Class and the classes. In Williams, Chris (ed.). A companion to nineteenth-century Britain, 305–20. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hilbe, Joseph M. 2011. Negative binomial regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiltunen, Turo. 2021. Intensification in eighteenth century medical writing. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (1): 90–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, Tim, Shoemaker, Robert, Emsley, Clive, Howard, Sharon, and McLaughlin, Jamie, et al. 2018. The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674–1913 (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0). Last accessed on 12 March 2023.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.). Approaches to grammaticalization. 2 volumes. Volume 1, 17–35. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Howson, Gerald. 1970. Thief-taker general: The rise and fall of Jonathan Wild. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

HTOED = The Historical Thesaurus of English. 2015. Edited by Marc Alexander, Christian Kay, Jane Roberts, Michael Samuels, and Irené Wotherspoon; accessed for data collection in 2016. See also the Historical Thesaurus of English, second edition (2020), edited by Christian Kay, Marc Alexander, Fraser Dallachy, Jane Roberts, Michael Samuels, and Irené Wotherspoon. Glasgow: University of Glasgow. https://ht.ac.uk/. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Anneli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi (eds.). Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1), n.p. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/01/huber/. Last accessed on 21 May 2023.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus. 2010. Trial proceedings as a source of spoken English: A critical evaluation based on negative contraction in the Proceedings of the Old Bailey, 1674–1913. In Helbig, Jörg and Schallegger, René (eds.). Anglistentag 2009 Klagenfurt. Proceedings, 343–54. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus. 2017. Structural and sociolinguistic factors conditioning the choice of relativizers in Late Modern English: A diachronic study based on the Old Bailey Corpus. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16 (1): 74–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus, and Puga, Karin. 2016. The Old Bailey Corpus 2.0, 1720–1913. Manual. http://fedora.clarin-d.uni-saarland.de/oldbailey/documentation.html. Last accessed on 21 May 2023.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus, Maiwald, Patrick, and Widlitzki, Bianca. 2012. The Old Bailey Corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. www1.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus/citation.html; www1.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus/index.html. Last accessed on 16 November 2020; no longer available, 12 May 2023.Google Scholar

Hübler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hughes, Geoffrey. 2000. A history of English words. Oxford: Blackwell.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 (3): 257–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackson, Stanley. 1978. The Old Bailey. London: W. H. Allen.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Andreas and Jucker, Andreas H.. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jenset, Gard B. and McGillivray, Barbara. 2017. Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, Otto H. 1922. Language: Its nature, development, and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig. 1993. ‘Sweetly oblivious’: Some aspects of adverb-adjective combinations in Present-day English. In Hoey, Michael (ed.). Data, description, discourse: Papers on the English language in honour of John McH Sinclair on his sixtieth birthday, 39–49. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A dictionary of the English language. 2 vols. London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton; T. and T. Longman; C. Hitch and L. Hawes; A. Millar; and R. and J. Dodsley.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2000. English historical pragmatics: Problems of data and methodology. In Di Martino, Gabriella and Lima, Maria (eds.). English diachronic pragmatics, 17–55. Napoli: CUEN.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.). 1995. Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd, and Lebsanft, Franz. 1999. Historical dialogue analysis: Roots and traditions in the study of the Romance languages, German and English. In Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd, and Lebsanft, Franz (eds.). Historical dialogue analysis, 1–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma. 2014. Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H., and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.). Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 3–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay, Christian and Allan, Kathryn. 2015. English historical semantics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher and McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81 (2): 345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, Graeme. 2003. Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English language teaching. Tesol Quarterly 37 (3): 467–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Key, Mary Ritchie. 1975. Male/female language. With a comprehensive bibliography. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.Google Scholar

King, Kevin. 2016. Intensifiers and image schemas: Schema type determines intensifier type. In Farrell, Patrick (ed.). Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1 (5): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kirchner, Gustav. 1955. Gradadverbien. Restriktiva und Verwandtes im heutigen Englisch (britisch und amerikanisch). Halle: VEB Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Koch, Peter. 1999. Court records and cartoons: Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in early Romance texts. In Jucker, Andreas H., Fritz, Gerd, and Lebsanft, Franz (eds.). Historical dialogue analysis, 399–429. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1985–1986. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1990. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 31). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2017. The comparative basis of intensification. In Napoli, Maria and Ravetto, Miriam (eds.). Exploring intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives, 15–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar W. (eds.). 2004. A handbook of varieties of English. Volume 2: Morphology and syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 2010. Data in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). Historical pragmatics, 33–67. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 2011. Corpora and historical linguistics. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 11: 417–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 2012. New perspectives, theories and methods: Corpus linguistics. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.). English historical linguistics: An international handbook, 1509–31. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja and Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: How ‘bad’ can ‘bad’ data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31 (3): 221–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.). Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 43–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar

Langbein, John H. 1978. The criminal trial before the lawyers. The University of Chicago Law Review 45 (2): 263–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langbein, John H. 1999. The prosecutorial origins of defence counsel in the eighteenth century: The appearance of solicitors. The Cambridge Law Journal 58 (2): 314–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langbein, John H. 2003. The origins of adversary criminal trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1977. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Third edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Lenker, Ursula. 2008. Booster prefixes in Old English – an alternative view of the roots of ME forsooth. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 245–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17 (5–6): 365–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

LOB Corpus = Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus, original version. 1976. Compiled by Geoffrey Leech (Lancaster University), Stig Johansson (University of Oslo), and Knut Hofland (University of Bergen).Google Scholar

London-Lund Corpus = London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. 1990. Compiled by Jan Svartvik. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar

Long, Lance N. and Christensen, William F.. 2008. Clearly, using intensifiers is very bad – or is it? Idaho Law Review 45 (1): 171–89.Google Scholar

Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). New reflections on grammaticalization, 143–61. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav, and McEnery, Tony. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (3): 319–44.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 1976. Social class and language in Glasgow. Language in Society 5 (2): 173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2002. Extremely interesting, very interesting, or only quite interesting? Adverbs and social class. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6 (3): 398–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macaulay, Ronald. 2006. Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change 18 (3): 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2016. Audio recordings. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 146–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Margerie, Hélène. 2008. A historical and collexeme analysis of the development of the compromiser fairly. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9 (2): 288–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, Jane. 2022. Gender and education in England since 1770: A social and cultural history. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mattila, Heikki E. S. 2013. Comparative legal linguistics: Language of law, Latin and modern lingua francas. Second edition. Translated by Christopher Goddard. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

May, Allyson N. 2003. The bar and the Old Bailey, 1750–1850. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

McManus, Jennifer. 2012. English degree modifiers: A diachronic corpus-based study of the maximizer class. PhD dissertation, University of Liverpool. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/9757/. Last accessed on 26 July 2023.Google Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2003. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swiþe. English Studies 84 (4): 372–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2008. On the history of downright. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014. Out of the spatial domain: ‘Out’-intensifiers in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 35: 241–74.Google Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2017. Co-occurrence and iteration of intensifiers in early English. English Text Construction 10 (2): 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2021. Synthetic intensification devices in Old English. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (2): 208–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Méndez-Naya, Belén and Pahta, Päivi. 2010. Intensifiers in competition: The picture from early English medical writing. In Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.). Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies, 191–213. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Social networks. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.). The handbook of language variation and change, 549–72. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mosteller, Frederick and Wallace, David L.. 1984. Applied Bayesian and classical inference: The case of The Federalist papers. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mulac, Anthony, Wiemann, John M., Widenmann, Sally J., and Gibson, Toni W.. 1988. Male/female language differences and effects in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs 55 (4): 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mulder, Gerben. 2020. The new statistics for applied linguistics. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 9 (1–2): 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part 1: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.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, 145–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. Early Modern English lexis and semantics. In Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume III: 1476–1776, 332–458. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. Gender differences in the evolution of Standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1): 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2008. Social variation in intensifier use: Constraint on -ly adverbialization in the past? English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, Palander-Collin, Minna, and Säily, Tanja (eds.). 2018. Patterns of change in 18th-century English. A sociolinguistic approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2012. Historical sociolinguistics: Origins, motivations, and paradigms. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan M. and Conde-Silvestre, J. Camilo (eds.). The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 22–40. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2017. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. Second edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Rissanen, Matti. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24: 359–80.CrossRefGoogle 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, 107–30. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar

Niedhart, Gottfried. 1993. Großbritannien 1750–1850. In Mieck, Ilja (ed.). Handbuch der Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte. Volume 4: Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte von der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts, 401–61. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar

Nissel, Magnus. 2016. OBC2Conc. Software (GPL). https://github.com/magnusnissel/OBC2Conc. Last accessed on 2 May 2017; no longer available, 12 May 2023.Google Scholar

O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

O’Barr, William M. and Bowman, K. Atkins. 1980. ‘Women’s language’ or ‘powerless language’? In McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Borker, Ruth, and Furman, Nelly (eds.). Women and language in literature and society, 93–110. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar

OBC 1.0 = Magnus, Huber, Nissel, Magnus, Maiwald, Patrick, and Widlitzki, Bianca. 2012. The Old Bailey Corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. www1.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus/citation.html; www1.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus/index.html. Last accessed on 16 November 2020; no longer available.Google Scholar

OED = Oxford English dictionary online. www.oed.com/. Last accessed on 27 July 2023.Google Scholar

Pahta, Päivi. 2006a. 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, 207–28. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Pahta, Päivi. 2006b. This is very important: A corpus study of amplifiers in medical writing. In Gotti, Maurizio and Salager-Meyer, Françoise (eds.). Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts, 357–81. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (1): 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paradis, Carita. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 317–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of the intensifier. In Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill, and Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds.). Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair, 177–92. Amsterdam: Benjamins.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, 269–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Online, 1674–1913; see Old Bailey Online under Primary Sources.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org/. Last accessed on 12 November 2020.Google Scholar

Ramsbottom, John D. 2002. Women and the family. In Dickinson, H. T. (ed.). A companion to eighteenth-century Britain, 210–22. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1996. Historical sociolinguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.). Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 11–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rickford, John R., Wasow, Thomas, Zwicky, Arnold, and Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2007. Intensive and quotative all: Something old, something new. American Speech 82 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1989. Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13: 16–19.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999a. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999b. On the adverbialization of rather: Surfing for historical data. In Hasselgård, Hilde and Oksefjell, Signe (eds.). Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 49–59. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 2008a. From ‛quickly’ to ‛fairly’: On the history of rather. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 345–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 2008b. Corpus linguistics and historical linguistics. In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.). Corpus linguistics: An international handbook. Volume 1, 53–68. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 2012. Corpora and the study of the history of English. In Kytö, Merja (ed.). English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths, 197–220. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Rogers, Nicholas. 2002. The middling orders. In Dickinson, H. T. (ed.). A companion to eighteenth-century Britain, 172–82. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 2016. The variationist approach. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 19–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubin, Donald L. and Greene, Kathryn. 1992. Gender-typical style in written language. Research in the Teaching of English 26 (1): 7–40.Google Scholar

Rule, John. 2002. The labouring poor. In Dickinson, H. T. (ed.). A companion to eighteenth-century Britain, 183–95. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rumbelow, Donald. 1982. The triple tree: Newgate, Tyburn and the Old Bailey. London: Harrap.Google Scholar

Säily, Tanja. 2018. Change or variation? Productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Palander-Collin, Minna, and Säily, Tanja (eds.). Patterns of change in 18th-century English. A sociolinguistic approach, 197–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, Edgar. 2002. Investigating variation and change in written documents. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.). The handbook of language variation and change, 67–96. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Schwarz, L. D. 1992. London in the age of industrialisation: Entrepreneurs, labour force and living conditions, 1700–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schweinberger, Martin. 2020. Analyzing change in the American English amplifier system in the fiction genre. In Rautionaho, Paula, Nurmi, Arja, and Klemola, Juhani (eds.). Corpora and the changing society: Studies in the evolution of English, 223–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schwenter, Scott A. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1 (1): 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shoemaker, Robert B. 1998. Gender in English society 1650–1850: The emergence of separate spheres? London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shoemaker, Robert B. 2008. The Old Bailey Proceedings and the representation of crime and criminal justice in eighteenth-century London. Journal of British Studies 47 (3): 559–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers in English and German: A comparison. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik. 2021. Syntactic change in Late Modern English: Studies on colloquialization and densification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sönning, Lukas. 2018. Statistical inference using estimation: Methods for corpus linguistics. [Materials for a workshop held at Uppsala University on 26–27 September 2018.] Bamberg: University of Bamberg.Google Scholar

Sönning, Lukas and Manfred, Krug. 2022. Comparing study designs and down-sampling strategies in corpus analysis: The importance of speaker metadata in the BNCs of 1994 and 2014. In Ole, Schützler and Julia, Schlüter (eds.). Data and methods in corpus linguistics: Comparative approaches, 127–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Spitzbardt, Harry. 1965. English adverbs of degree and their semantic fields. Philologica Pragensia 8 (3): 349–59.Google Scholar

Spoken BNC2014. 2017. Compiled by Tony McEnery, Claire Dembry, Andrew Hardie, Vaclav Brezina, and Robbie Love (Lancaster University); see https://cass.lancs.ac.uk/cass-projects/spoken-bnc2014/. Last accessed on 12 October 2023.Google Scholar

Stange, Ulrike. 2021. ‘He should so be in jail.’ An empirical study on preverbal so in American English. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (1): 114–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and down-toners: A study in English adverbs. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar

Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2018a. Diminutivity and evaluation in courtroom interaction: Patterns with little (Part 1). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 135: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2018b. Diminutivity and evaluation in courtroom interaction: Patterns with little (Part 2). Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 135: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma and Susan, Fitzmaurice. 2007. Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. In Fitzmaurice, Susan and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). Methods in historical pragmatics, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics 12 (2): 361–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. Teen talk: The language of adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Roberts, Chris. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 80 (3): 280–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2000. Sociohistorical linguistics and the observer’s paradox. In Kastovsky, Dieter and Mettinger, Arthur (eds.). The history of English in a social context: A contribution to historical sociolinguistics, 441–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2009. An introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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, 245–71. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. The role of pragmatics in a theory of semantic change. In Verschueren, Jef (ed.). Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Volume 2, 93–102. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.). The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). Constructions and language change, 23–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010a. Grammaticalization. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma, Taavitsainen (eds.). Historical pragmatics, 97–126. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010b. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2011. Constructing the audiences of the Old Bailey Trials 1674–1834. In Pahta, Päivi and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.). Communicating early English manuscripts, 69–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012a. Linguistic levels: Semantics and lexicon. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.). English historical linguistics: An international handbook, 164–77. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012b. On the persistence of ambiguous linguistic contexts over time: Implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In Mukherjee, Joybrato and Huber, Magnus (eds.). Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description, 231–46. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012c. The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In Kytö, Merja (ed.). English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths, 221–55. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. Identifying micro-changes in a particular linguistic change-type: The case of subjectification. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 376–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2018. Rethinking the role of invited inferencing in change from the perspective of interactional texts. In Ehmer, Oliver and Rosemeyer, Malte (eds.). Special issue on Inferences in interaction and language change. Open Linguistics 4 (1): 19–34.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2019. Whither historical pragmatics? A cognitively-oriented perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.). Approaches to grammaticalization. 2 volumes. Volume 1, 189–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Leeuwen, Marco H. D. and Maas, Ineke. 2011. HISCLASS. A historical international social class scheme. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar

van Leeuwen, Marco H. D., Maas, Ineke, and Miles, Andrew. 2002. HISCO: Historical international standard classification of occupations. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar

Vartiainen, Turo. 2016. Evaluative nominals in Present-day English: A corpus-based study of the definiteness and syntactic distribution of subjective and objective NPs. Folia Linguistica 50 (1): 243–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vartiainen, Turo. 2021. Trends and recent change in the syntactic distribution of degree modifiers: Implications for a usage-based theory of word classes. Journal of English Linguistics 49 (2): 228–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vermeire, Antoine R. 1979. Intensifying adverbs: A syntactic, semantic and lexical study of fifteen degree intensifiers, based on an analysis of two computer corpuses of Modern English. PhD thesis, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar

Wagner, Susanne. 2017. Totally new and pretty awesome: Amplifier-adjective bigrams in GloWbE. Lingua 200: 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Waksler, Rachelle. 2012. Super, uber, so, and totally: Over-the-top intensification to mark subjectivity in colloquial discourse. In Baumgarten, Nicole, du Bois, Inke, and House, Juliane (eds.). Subjectivity in language and in discourse, 17–30. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar

Wallis, Sean. 2021. Statistics in corpus linguistics research: A new approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ward, Richard M. 2014. Print culture, crime and justice in 18th-century London. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warren, Beatrice. 1992. Sense developments: A contrastive study of the development of slang senses and novel standard senses in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Warren, Beatrice. 1999. Laws of thought, knowledge and lexical change. In Blank, Andreas and Koch, Peter (eds.). Historical semantics and cognition, 215–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Weinreich, Uriel, William, Labov, and Marvin, I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.). Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Whyte, Ian. 2004. Migration and settlement. In Williams, Chris (ed.). A companion to nineteenth-century Britain, 273–86. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Widlitzki, Bianca. 2018. Morphosyntactic variation and change in Late Modern English. A sociolinguistic perspective. PhD dissertation, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2018/13754/. Last accessed on 26 July 2023.Google Scholar

Xiao, Richard and Tao, Hongyin. 2007. A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of amplifiers in British English. Sociolinguistic Studies 1 (2): 241–73.Google Scholar

Yaguchi, Michiko, Iyeiri, Yoko, and Baba, Yasumasa. 2010. Speech style and gender distinctions in the use of very and real/really: An analysis of the Corpus of Spoken Professional American English. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (3): 585−97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar