Aarts, Bas. 1992. Small clauses in English: The non-verbal types. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Aarts, Bas. 2004a. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28.1: 1–49.Google Scholar

Aarts, Bas. 2004b. Conceptions of gradience in the history of linguistics. Language Sciences 26.4: 343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Adams, Valerie. 1973. An introduction to modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Akimoto, Minoji. 1995. Grammaticalization and idiomatization. In Powell, Mava Jo (ed.), The twenty-first LACUS Forum 1994. Chapel Hill, NC: LACUS, 583–91.Google Scholar

Akimoto, Minoji. 1999. Collocations and idioms in Late Modern English. In Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 207–38.Google Scholar

Akimoto, Minoji. 2006. On the decline of after and forth in verb phrases. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus, & Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, 11–31.Google Scholar

Alexander, Louis George. 1988. Longman English grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Allen, Robert. 1964. A grammar of written English. New York: Columbia University Press, Institute for Teachers of English.Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the unidirectionality of change. In Andersen, Henning (ed.), Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Øivin. 2007. Deverbal nouns, lexicalization and syntactic change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30.1: 55–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Howard, & Ehrenpreis, Irvin. 1966. The familiar letter in the eighteenth century: Some generalizations. In Anderson, Howard, Daghlian, Philip B., & Ehrenpreis, Irvin (eds.), The familiar letter in the eighteenth century. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 269–82.Google Scholar

Anthony, Edward M. 1954. An exploratory inquiry into lexical clusters. American Speech 29: 175–80.Google Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2012. Data retrieval in a diachronic context: The case of the historical English courtroom. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 145–54.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society 2.3: 333–71.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

Auer, Anita. 2015. Stylistic variation. In Auer, Anita, Schreier, Dani, & Watts, Dick (eds.), Letter writing and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, Francis. 1998. Epistolary conventions in The Clift Family Correspondence. In Rydén, Mats, Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, & Kytö, Merja (eds.), A reader in Early Modern English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 319–47.Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 1989. A corpus-based approach to morphological productivity: Statistical analysis and psycho-linguistic interpretation. PhD dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, Gert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 109–49.Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baugh, Albert C., & Cable, Thomas. 1993. A history of the English language. Fourth edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Beal, Joan. 2004. English in modern times: 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13.2: 145–204.Google Scholar

Beths, Frank. 1999. The history of dare and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37.6: 1069–110.Google Scholar

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

Biber, Douglas. 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27.1: 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2001. Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. In Diller, Hans-Jürgen & Görlach, Manfred (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 89–109.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2003a. Variation among university spoken and written genres: A new multi-dimensional analysis. In Lestyna, Pepi & Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 47–70.Google Scholar

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

Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward. 1988. Drift in three English genres from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries: A multidimensional approach. In Kytö, Merja, Ihalainen, Ossi, & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Corpus linguistics, hard and soft: Psroceedings of the 8th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 83–101.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65.3: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & 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, & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 688–704.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward. 1994. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Oostdijk, Nelleke & de Haan, Pieter (eds.), Corpus-based research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 201–21.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 253–75.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward. 2001. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Conrad, Susan & Biber, Douglas (eds.), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Pearson Education, 66–83.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & Clark, Victoria. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–66.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, Atkinson, Dwight, Beck, Ann, Burges, Dennis & Burges, Jena. 1994a. The design and analysis of the ARCHER corpus: A progress report. In Kytö, Merja, Rissanen, Matti, & Wright, Susan (eds.), Corpora across the centuries: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, St. Catharine’s College Cambridge, 25–27 March 1993. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 3–6.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward & Atkinson, Dwight. 1994b. ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In Fries, Udo, Schneider, Peter, & Tottie, Gunnel (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the 14th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zürich 1993. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1–13.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Reppen, Randy. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Blake, Norman Francis. 2002. Phrasal verbs and associated forms. Atlantis 24.2: 25–39.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Transitivity and spatiality: The passive of prepositional verbs. In Makkai, Adam, Becker-Makkai, Valerie, & Heilmann, Luigi (eds.), Linguistics at the crossroads. Lake Bluff, IL: Liviana Editrice, Padova and Jupiter Press, 57–78.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, & Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 163–76.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1985. Verb particles in English: Aspect or aktionsart? Studia Linguistica 39.2: 157–68.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Attitudes toward increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English. Journal of English Linguistics 24.3: 186–205.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2002. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: On the ‘late’ use of temporal adverbs. In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 67–97.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2007. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Taavitsainen, Irma & Fitzmaurice, Susan M. (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 37–80.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. Morphosyntactic and semantic aspects of change in English: The perspective of grammaticalization. Seminar at the University of Santiago de Compostela, 5–10 May 2010.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J., & Akimoto, Minoji. 1999. Introduction. In Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, David West, & Palmer, Chris C.. 2015. The phrasal verb in American English: Using corpora to track down historical trends in particle distribution, register variation, and noun collocations. In Adams, Michael, Brinton, Laurel J., & Fulk, R.D. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language VI: Evidence and method in histories of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 71–97.Google Scholar

Burridge, Kate. (1998). From modal auxiliary to lexical verb: The curious case of Pennsylvania German wotte. In Hogg, Richard M. & Bergen, Linda (eds.), Historical linguistics 1995. Selected Papers from the 12th ICHL, Manchester, August 1995, Vol. 2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 19–31.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602–23.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2002. And up it rises: Particle preposing in English. In Dehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew, & Urban, Silke (eds.), Verb-particle explorations. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 43–66.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2005. Particle patterns in English: A comprehensive coverage. PhD dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Letteren, Departement Linguistik.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions Online, SVI-7: 1–28.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2007. When ‘wee wretched words’ wield weight: The impact of verbal particles on transitivity. In Nenonen, Marja & Niemi, Sinikka (eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes, Joensuu, Finland, 19–20 May 2006. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, 41–54.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2009a. Can we factor out free choice? In Dufter, Andreas, Fleischer, Jürg, & Seiler, Guido (eds.), Describing and modelling variation in grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 183–201.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2009b. Contextual cues for particle placement: Multiplicity, motivation, modelling. In Bergs, Alexander T. & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145–92.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert, Shtyrov, Yury & Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115.3: 189–201.Google Scholar

Castillo, Concha. 1994. Verb-particle combinations in Shakespearean English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 95.4: 439–51.Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, Marianne, & Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1999. The grammar book. An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2009. ‘As silly as an Irish teague’. Comparisons in Early English news discourse. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Early Modern English news discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 91–114.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2010. News discourse. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 587–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claridge, Claudia, & Wilson, Andrew. 2002. Style evolution in the English sermon. In Fanego, Teresa, Méndez-Naya, Belén, & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Sounds, words, texts and change: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 25–44.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard, & Kuteva, Tania. 2005. The evolution of grammatical structures and ‘functional need’ explanations. In Tallerman, Maggie (ed.), Language origins: Perspectives on evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185–206.Google Scholar

Conde-Silvestre, Juan 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 and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 46–66.Google Scholar

Cotter, Colleen. 2003. Prescription and practice: Motivations behind change in news discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 45–74.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2007. Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 31.2: 409–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, & Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.2: 175–99.Google Scholar

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

Cusack, Bridget (ed.). 1998. Everyday English 1500–1700: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curme, George O. 1931. A grammar of the English language, Vol. 2: Syntax. Boston, MA: D.C. Health.Google Scholar

Darwin, Clayton M., & Gray, Loretta S.. 1999. Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification. TESOL Quarterly 33.1: 65–83.Google Scholar

De la Cruz Fernández, Juan M. 1969. Origins and development of the phrasal verb to the end of the Middle English period. PhD dissertation, Queen’s University Belfast.Google Scholar

De la Cruz Fernández, Juan M. 1972a. Transference and metaphor in Middle English verbs accompanied by a locative particle. Orbis 21.1: 114–35.Google Scholar

De la Cruz Fernández, Juan M. 1972b. The Latin influence on the development of the English phrasal verb. English Philological Studies 13: 1–43.Google Scholar

De la Cruz Fernández, Juan M. 1975. Old English pure prefixes: Structure and function. Linguistics 145: 47–81.Google Scholar

De la Cruz Fernández, Juan M. 1976. Context sensitivity in Old and Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 8: 3–43.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2005. A corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29: 69–82.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. Grammatical interference: Subject marker ‘for’ and the phrasal verb particles ‘out’ and ‘forth’. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75–104.Google Scholar

Declerck, Renaat. 1976. A proposal concerning the underlying structure of literal phrasal verbs. Kortrijk: Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte.Google Scholar

Declerck, Renaat. 1977. Some arguments in favour of a generative semantic analysis of sentences with an adverbial particle or a prepositional phrase of goal. Orbis 26: 297–340.Google Scholar

Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2002. Particle verbs in English: Syntax, information structure and intonation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dempsey, Kyle B., McCarthy, Philip M. & McNamara, Danielle S.. 2007. Using phrasal verbs as an index to distinguish text genres. Natural Language Processing 13.3: 217–22.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1981. Aspects of the history of English group-verbs, with particular attention to the syntax of the Ormulum. PhD dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1985. The origins of completive up in English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86.1: 37–61.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, Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 92–329.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, 279–304.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 2007. Syntactic surprises in some English letters: The underlying progress of the language. In Elspass, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim, & Vanderbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 115–27.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 105–28.Google Scholar

Diemer, Stefan. 2009. It’s all a bit upmessing – Non-standard verb-particle combinations in blogs. Saarland Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 35–56.Google Scholar

Diemer, Stefan. 2014. Closing the gap – The development of verb-particle combinations in English between 1810 & 1960. In Iyeiri, Yoko & Smith, Jennifer (eds.), Studies in Middle and Modern English: Historical change. Osaka: Osaka Books, 41–57.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger, & Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Particle placement in early child language: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.1: 89–111.Google Scholar

Dossena, Marina, & Jones, Charles. 2003. Introduction. In Dossena, Marina & Jones, Charles (eds.), Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, 7–17.Google Scholar

Downing, Angela, & Locke, Philip. 1992. A university course in English grammar. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Elenbaas, Marion. 2007. The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English verb-particle combination (LOT Dissertations 149). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Elenbaas, Marion. 2013. Motivations for particle verb word order in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 13.3: 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elspass, Stephan. 2012. The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 157–68.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph E. 1972. Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language 8.4: 546–61.Google Scholar

Emsley, Clive, Hitchcock, Tim & Shoemaker, Robert. 2015. Trial Procedures. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London’s Central Criminal Court, 1674 to 1913. Available at: www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Trial-procedures.jspGoogle Scholar

Erades, Peter A. 1961. Points of modern English syntax XL. English Studies 42: 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 1996. The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 17.2: 97–152.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward. 1992. Style and standardization in England: 1700–1900. In Machan, Tim W. & Scott, Charles T. (eds.), English in its social contexts. Essays in historical sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, 102–30.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Win. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2002. The familiar letter in Early Modern English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Francis, Elaine J., & Yuasa, Etsuyo. 2008. A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44.1: 45–86.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1965. An examination of the verb-particle construction in English. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1970a. Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 6.1: 22–42.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1970b. Some remarks on the action-nominalization in English. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company, 83–98.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Fries, Udo. 2012. Newspapers. In Bergs, Alexander T. & Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, Vol. I. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1063–75.Google Scholar

Fries, Udo, & Lehmann, Hans Martin. 2006. The style of 18th-century newspapers: Lexical diversity. In Brownlees, Nicholas (ed.), News discourse in Early Modern Britain: Selected papers from CHINED 2004. Bern: Peter Lang, 91–104.Google Scholar

Gardner, Dee, & Davies, Mark. 2007. Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 41.2: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geisler, Christer. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: A multidimensional comparison. In Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M., & Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 249–71.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2016. Tuning in to the verb-particle construction in English. In Nash, Léa & Samvelian, Pollet (eds.), Approaches to complex predicates. Leiden: Brill, 110–41.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1988. The study of Early Modern English variation: The Cinderella of English historical linguistics? In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical dialectology: Regional and social. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 211–28.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in nineteenth-century England: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 2001. Eighteenth-century English. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 2004. Text types and the history of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Gotti, Maurizio. 2011. The development of specialized discourse in the Philosophical Transactions. In Taavitsainen, Irma & Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Medical writing in Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 204–20.Google Scholar

Gray, Bethany, Biber, Douglas & Hiltunen, Turo. 2011. The expression of stance in early (1665–1712) publications of the Philosophical Transactions and other contemporary medical prose: Innovations in a pioneering discourse. In Taavitsainen, Irma & Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Medical writing in Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 221–57.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London and New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2008. Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In Granger, Sylviane & Meunier, Fanny (eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2009a. Statistics for linguistics with R. A practical introduction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2009b. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R. A practical introduction. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2011. Acquiring particle placement in English: A corpus-based perspective. In Guerrero-Medina, Pilar (ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 235–63.Google Scholar

Grund, Peter. 2007. From tongue to text: The transmission of the Salem witchcraft examination records. American Speech 82.2: 119–50.Google Scholar

Guerrero-Medina, Pilar. 2001. Reconsidering aspectuality: Interrelations between grammatical and lexical aspect. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 75: 1–11.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane, & Guéron, Jacqueline. 1999. English grammar: A generative perspective. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3.1: 199–244.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, & Martin, James R.. 1993. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London and Washington, DC: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate. 2002. Superlative verbs: A corpus-based study of semantic redundancy in English verb-particle constructions. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate. 2005. When down is not bad, and up not good enough: A usage-based assessment of the plus-minus parameter in image-schema theory. Cognitive Linguistics 16.1: 81–112.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37.6: 1043–68.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–44.Google Scholar

Heaton, John B. 1965. Prepositions and adverbial particles. London: Longman.Google Scholar

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

Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Herbert, Alan Patrick. 1935. What a word! London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar

Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo. 2015. Assessing variability and change in Early English letters. In Auer, Anita, Schreier, Dani, & Watts, Dick (eds.), Letter writing and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14–34.Google Scholar

Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, & García-Vidal, Tamara. 2018a. Persona management and identity projection in English Medieval society: Evidence from John Paston II. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 4.1: 1–31.Google Scholar

Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & García-Vidal, Tamara. 2018b. 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

Hiltunen, Risto. 1983a. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis 160). Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1983b. Phrasal verbs in English grammar books before 1800. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84.3: 376–86.Google Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1994. Phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: Notes on lexis and style. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 129–40.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–42.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the OED quotations database as a corpus: Linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 28: 17–30.Google Scholar

Hohenhaus, Peter. 2005. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Štekaner, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of word-formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 353–73.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–36.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1994. Phonogenesis. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 29–45.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hornbeak, Katherine G. 1934. The complete letter writer in English, 1568–1800. Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press.Google Scholar

Horobin, Simon, & Smith, Jeremy. 2002. An introduction to Middle English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1764–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli & Nurmi, Arja (eds.), Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1). Helsinki: University of Helsinki: Available at: www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huber/Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hulme, Hilda M. 1987. The spoken language and the dramatic text: Some notes on the interpretation of Shakespeare’s language. In Salmon, Vivian & Burness, Edwina (eds.), A reader in the language of Shakespearean drama. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 145–52.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, & Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4.2: 221–42.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carlin (eds.). 2007. Corpus linguistics and the web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Ishizaki, Yasuaki. 2009. A usage-based analysis of the distribution of forth in the history of English. Kindai Eigo Kenkyu (Studies in Modern English) 25: 41–61.Google Scholar

Ishizaki, Yasuaki. 2012. A usage-based analysis of phrasal verbs in Early and Late Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 16.2: 241–60.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73.3: 534–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In Dehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew, & Urban, Silke (eds.), Verb-particle explorations. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. In Campbell, Lyle (ed.), Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. Language Sciences, Vol. 23, 265–340.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1970. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax, Vol. II. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Jones, Charles. 1989. A history of English phonology. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2000. History of English and English historical linguistics. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2003. Mass media communication at the beginning of the twenty-first century: Dimensions of change. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4.1: 129–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2005. New discourse: Mass media communication from the seventeenth to the twenty-first century. In Skaffari, Janne, Peikola, Matti, Carroll, Ruth, Hiltunen, Risto, & Wårvik, Brita (eds.), Opening windows on texts and discourses of the past. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 7–21.Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 2009. Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse in Early Modern Britain. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Early Modern English news discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–9.Google Scholar

Kačmárová, Alena. 2006. On conveying strong judgments in conversational English. Prešove: University of Prešove.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Arthur Garfield. 1920. The modern English verb-adverb combination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Kiativutikul, Choorit, & Phoocharoensil, Supakorn. 2014. A corpus-based study of phrasal verbs: CARRY OUT, FIND OUT, and POINT OUT. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 3.7: 73–88.Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, Adam. 2001. Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6.1: 97–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kilgarriff, Adam, & Grefenstette, Gregory. 2003. Introduction to the Special issue on the web as a corpus. Computational Linguistics 29.3: 333–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kilgarriff, Adam, & Sharoff, Serge (eds.). 2012. Proceedings of the Seventh Web as a Corpus Workshop. Available at: http://sigwac.org.uk/raw-attachment/wiki/WAC7/wac7-proc.pdfGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of Language 4.1: 30–57.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 131–75.Google Scholar

Konishi, Tomoshichi. 1958. The growth of the verb-adverb combination in English – A brief sketch. In Araki, Kazuo (ed.), Studies in English grammar and linguistics: A miscellany in honour of Takanobu Otsuka. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 117–28.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. The triad ‘tense-aspect-aktionsart’: Problems and possible solutions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 9–30.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kruisinga, Etsko. 1931. A handbook of present-day English. Part II: English accidence and syntax. Fifth edition. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Kruisinga, Etsko, & Erades, Peter A.. 1953. An English grammar, Vol. I, Part I. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania. 2008. On the frills of grammaticalization. In López-Couso, María José & Seoane, Elena (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 189–217.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts. Third edition. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press for the Department of English, University of Helsinki. Available at: http://clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/HC/INDEX.HTMGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja, & Smitterberg, Erik. 2006. Nineteenth-century English: An age of stability or a period of change? In Facchineti, Roberta & Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Corpus-based studies of diachronic English. Bern: Peter Lang, 199–230.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, & 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.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, & Walker, Terry. 2006. Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats & Smitterberg, Erik. 2006. Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, David. 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

Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–18.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–18.Google Scholar

Leone, Ljubica. 2016a. Aspectual and idiomatic properties of the particle on in Late Modern spoken English. Topics in Linguistics 17.1: 64–80.Google Scholar

Leone, Ljubica. 2016b. Phrasal verbs and analogical generalization in Late Modern spoken English. ICAME Journal 40.1: 39–62.Google Scholar

Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara, & Hanks, Patrick. 1996. Completive particles and verbs of closing in English. In Weigand, Edda & Hundsnurscher, Franz (eds.), Lexical structures and language use: Proceedings of the International Conference on Lexicology and Lexical Semantics, Münster, September 13–15, 1994. Vol. 2: Session Papers. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 89–103.Google Scholar

Li, Ping, & Shirai, Yasuro. 2000. The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lijffijt, Jefrey, Nevalainen, Terttu, Säily, Tanja, Papapetrou, Panagiotis, Puolamäki, Kai & Mannila, Heikki. 2016. Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31.2: 374–97.Google Scholar

Lindner, Susan J. 1983. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with OUT and UP. PhD dissertation, University of Indiana, Bloomington.Google Scholar

Lipka, Leonhard. 1972. Semantic structure and word-formation: Verb-particle constructions in contemporary English. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Liu, Dilin. 2011. The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American English: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 45.4: 661–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Live, Anna H. 1965. The discontinuous verb in English. Word 21.3: 428–51.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou. 2004. From resultative predicate to event-modifier: The case of forth and on. In Kay, Christian, Horobin, Simon, & Smith, Jeremy (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Vol. I: Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 83–102.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou, Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion & van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Morphosyntactic change: A comparative study of particles and prefixes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 1997. 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 and Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 195–209.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: Statistics, frequencies and beyond. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121–50.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Maittaire, Michael. 1712. The English grammar: Or, an essay on the art of grammar, applied to and exemplified in the English tongue. London: printed by W.B. for H. Clements at the Half-Moon in St. Paul’s Church-Yard.Google Scholar

Makkai, Adam. 1972. Idiom structure in English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Marks, Jonathan. 2005. The truth revealed: Phrasal verbs in writing and speech. MED Magazine 33. Available at: www.macmillandictionaries.com/MED-Magazine/October2005/34-Feature-PV-Spoken-Written.htmGoogle Scholar

Martin, Pamela. 1990. The phrasal verb: Diachronic development in British and American English. PhD dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College (USA).Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Meiko. 2008. From simple verbs to periphrastic expressions: The historical development of composite predicates, phrasal verbs and related constructions in English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

McArthur, Tom. 1989. The long-neglected phrasal verb. English Today 5.2: 38–44.Google Scholar

McIntosh, Carey. 1986. Common and courtly language: The stylistics of social class in the 18th-century English literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

McIntosh, Carey. 1998. The evolution of English prose 1700–1900: Style, politeness, and print culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McIntyre, Andrew. 2001. Argument blockages induced by verb particles in English and German: Event modification and secondary predication. In Dehé, Nicole & Wanner, Anja (eds.), Structural aspects of semantically complex verbs. Berlin: Peter Lang, 131–64.Google Scholar

McIntyre, Andrew. 2002. Idiosyncrasy in particles. In Dehé, Nikole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew, & Urban, Silke (eds.), Verb-particle explorations. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 95–118.Google Scholar

Meyer, Charles F., Grabowski, Roger, Han, Hung-Yul, Mantzouranis, Konstantin & Moses, Stephanie. 2003. The World Wide Web as a linguistic corpus. In Leystina, Pepi & Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 241–54.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Terence F. 1958. Syntagmatic relations in linguistic analysis. Transactions of the Philological Society 1958: 101–18.Google Scholar

Montgomery, Michael. 1995. The linguistic value of Ulster emigrant letters. Ulster Folklife 41: 1–16.Google Scholar

Moreno-Cabrera, Juan Carlos. 1998. On the relationship between grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Giacalone-Ramat, Anna & Hopper, Paula J. (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 211–27.Google Scholar

Morgan, Pamela. 1997. Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8.4: 327–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevala, Minna. 2004a. Inside and out: Forms of address in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century letters. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5.2: 273–98.Google Scholar

Nevala, Minna. 2004b. Address in Early English correspondence. Its forms and socio-pragmatic functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

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

Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999b. Making the best use of ‘bad’ data: Evidence for sociolinguistic variation in Early Modern English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100.4: 499–533.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2001. Continental conventions in Early English correspondence. In Diller, Hans-Jürgen & Görlach, Manfred (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 203–25.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2002. English newsletters in the 17th century. In Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel, & Lehmann, Hans Martin (eds.), Text types and corpora: Studies in honour of Udo Fries. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 67–76.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, & Raumoulin-Brunberg, Helena. 1989. A corpus of Early Modern Standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 90.1: 67–110.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nickel, Gerhard. 1968. Complex verbal structures in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 6: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nickel, Gerhard. 1978. Complex verbal structures in English. In Nehls, Dieter (ed.), Studies in descriptive linguistics. Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 63–83.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2011. Degrammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 475–87.Google Scholar

Nuccorini, Stefania. 1990. From transparency to opaqueness: The case of fixed expressions. In de Stasio, Clotilde, Gotti, Maurizio, & Bonadei, Rosanna (eds.), La rappresentazione verbale e iconica: Valori estetici e funzionali. Milan: Angelo Guerini, 417–28.Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3: 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nurmi, Arja, & Nevala, Minna. 2010. The social space of an eighteenth-century governess. In , Päivi Pahta, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, & Minna Palander-Collin, (eds.), Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–89.Google Scholar

Nurmi, Arja, & Palander-Collin, Minna. 2008. Letters as a text type: Interaction in writing. In Dossena, Marina & van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon (eds.), Studies in Late Modern English correspondence. Bern: Peter Lang, 21–49.Google Scholar

O’Dowd, Elizabeth M. 1998. Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa. 2002. Preterite and past participle forms in English 1680–1790: Standardisation processes in public and private writing. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa. 2006. The passive in nineteenth-century scientific writing. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, & Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 110–35.Google Scholar

Olsen, Susan. 2000. Against incorporation. In Dölling, Johannes & Pechmann, Thomas (eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 74. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, University of Leipzig, 149–72.Google Scholar

Palander-Collin, Minna, Nevala, Minna & Nurmi, Arja. 2009. The language of daily life in the history of English: Studying how macro meets micro. In Nurmi, Arja, Nevala, Minna, & Palander-Collin, Minna (eds.), The language of daily life in England (1400–1800). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–23.Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank Robert. 1988. The English verb. Second edition. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Palmer, Chris C. 2015. Measuring productivity diachronically: Nominal suffixes in English letters, 1400–1600. English Language and Linguistics 19.1: 107–29.Google Scholar

Pelli, Mario G. 1976. Verb-particle combinations in American English: A study based on American plays from the end of the 18th century to the present. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar

Percy, Carol. 1996. English ‘normative’ grammar in practice: The case of Captain Cook. In Britton, Derek (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994. Selected papers from the 8th ICEHL Edinburgh, 19–23 September 1994. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 339–62.Google Scholar

Percy, Carol. 2012. Early advertising and newspapers as sources of sociolinguistic investigation. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 191–210.Google Scholar

Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge & Rama-Martínez, Esperanza. 2007. Introduction. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge, & Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.), ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, 11–24.Google Scholar

Potter, Simeon. 1965. English phrasal verbs. Philologica Pragensia 8: 285–9.Google Scholar

Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Cappelle, Bert & Shtyrov, Yury. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions and grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 397–416.Google Scholar

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

R Core Team. 2016. R version 3.3.1: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar

Radden, Günter. 2004. The metaphor TIME AS SPACE across languages. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 8.2/3: 1–14.Google Scholar

Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30.3: 549–60.Google Scholar

Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Schaner-Wolles, Chrish, Rennison, John, & Neubarth, Friedrich (eds.), Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Torino: Rosenbach and Sellier, 393–401.Google Scholar

Rice, Sally A. 1999. Aspects of prepositions and prepositional aspect. In de Stadler, Leon & Eyrich, Christoph (eds.), Issues in cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 225–47.Google Scholar

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

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

Romaine, Suzanne. 1998. Introduction. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–56.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2007. On the relationship between phrasal verbs and the processes of grammaticalization, lexicalization and idiomatization: Phrasal verbs with get as a test case. MA dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2009a. The effects of lexicalization, grammaticalization and idiomatization on phrasal verbs in English: Some combinations with get as a test case. In Prado-Alonso, Carlos, Gómez-García, Lidia, Pastor-Gómez, Iria, & Tizón-Couto, David (eds.), New trends and methodologies in applied English language research: Diachronic, diatopic and contrastive studies. Bern: Peter Lang, 71–85.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2009b. Is there a prototypical phrasal verb? On the relationship between phrasal verbs and the processes of grammaticalization, lexicalization and idiomatization. In Bretones Callejas, Carmen M., Sánchez, José Francisco Fernández, Ibáñez, José Ramón Ibáñez, Sánchez, María Elena García, de los Ríos, Mª Enriqueta Cortés, Ramiro, Sagrario Salaberri, Martínez, María Soledad Cruz, Honeyman, Nobel Perdú, & Márquez, Blasina Cantiazano (eds.), Applied linguistics now: Understanding language and mind. Almería: Universidad de Almería, 1671–80.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2012a. The development of non-compositional meanings in phrasal verbs: A corpus-based study. English Studies 93.1: 71–90.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, , Paula. 2012b. Talking ‘private’ with phrasal verbs: A corpus-based study of the use of phrasal verbs in diaries, journals and private letters. In Tyrkkö, Jukka, Nevalainen, Terttu, Rissanen, Matti, & Kilpiö, Matti (eds.), Outposts of historical corpus linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a proliferation of resources (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Available at: www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/10/rodriguez-puente/Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2012c. ‘These I had never before observed down’. A corpus-based study of phrasal verbs in Late Modern English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113.4: 433–56.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2013. A turn of the screw in the semantics of phrasal verbs: Phrasal verbs with up as a test case. In Hegedüs, Irén & Pödör, Dóra (eds.), Periphrasis, replacement and renewal: Studies in English historical linguistics. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 241–65.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2014. Colloquialization and ‘decolloquialization’: Phrasal verbs in formal contexts: 1650–1990. In Pfenninger, Simone E., Timofeeva, Olga, Gardner, Anne, Honkapohja, Alpo, Hundt, Marianne, & Schreier, Daniel (eds.), Contact, variation and change in the history of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 163–86.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2016. Particle placement in Late Modern English and Twentieth-century English: Morpho-syntactic variables. Folia Linguistica Historica 37: 145–75.Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2017. Tracking down phrasal verbs in the spoken language of the past: Late Modern English in focus. English Language and Linguistics 21.1: 69–97.Google Scholar

Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1994. English main verbs move never. Penn Review of Linguistics 18: 145–59.Google Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor Heider. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–50.Google Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor Heider. 1975. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7: 532–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, Eleanor Heider. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, Eleanor H. & Lloyd, Barbara B. (eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27–48.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, Christoph, & Hilpert, Martin. 2017. Colloquialization in journalistic writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 18.1: 101–35.Google Scholar

Sairio, Anni. 2009. Language and letters of the Bluestocking network: Sociolinguistic issues in eighteenth-century epistolary English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Samuels, Michael L. 1972. Linguistic evolution: With special reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Seoane, Elena. 2006a. Information structure and word order change: The passive as an information rearranging strategy in the history of English. In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, 360–91.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena. 2006b. Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus, & Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, 191–211.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena. 2013. On the conventionalisation of the passive voice in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14.1: 70–99.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena, & Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2005. On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English. ESP Across Cultures 2: 106–18.Google Scholar

Scott, Michael. 1999. WordSmith Tools version 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Scott, Michael. 2012. WordSmith Tools version 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.Google Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik. 2008. The progressive and phrasal verbs: Evidence of colloquialization in nineteenth-century English? In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, , Päivi Pahta, & Minna Korhonen, (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 269–89.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlota S. 1983. A theory of aspectual choice. Language 59: 479–501.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Second edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Smollett, Rebecca. 2002. Why you can ‘eat up’ an apple but not ‘consume up’ an apple: Latinate verbs and English particles. Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association Meetings, Toronto, May 2002: 285–98.Google Scholar

Sneed, Elisa. 2002. The acceptability of regular plurals in compounds. Chicago Linguistic Society 38: 617–32.Google Scholar

Spasov, Dimiter. 1966. English phrasal verbs. Sofia: Naouka Izkoustvo.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew J., & Zaretskaya, Martina. 1998. Verb prefixation in Russian as lexical subordination. Linguistics 36.1: 1–39.Google Scholar

Sroka, Kazimierz A. 1972. The syntax of English phrasal verbs. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Svartvik, Jan. 1985. On voice in the English verb. Second edition. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 2001. Changing conventions of writing: The dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions. European Journal of English Studies 5.2: 139–50.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 2010. Discourse and genre dynamics in the Early Modern English medical writing. In Taavitsainen, Irma & Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 29–54.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma, & Pahta, Päivi (eds.). 2010a. Early Modern English Medical Texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma, & Pahta, Päivi. 2010b. Scientific discourse. In Taavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Historical pragmatics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 549–86.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma, , Päivi Pahta, & Martti Mäkinen, (eds.). 2005. Middle English medical texts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma, Hiltunen, Turo, Lehto, Anu, Marttila, Ville, , Päivi Pahta, Maura Ratia, Carla Suhr, Jukka Tyrkkö, . 2014. Late Modern English Medical Texts 1700–1800: A corpus for analysing eighteenth-century medical English. ICAME Journal 38.1: 137–53.Google Scholar

Taha, Abdul Karim. 1960. The structure of two-word verbs in English. In Allen, Harold B. (ed.), Readings in applied linguistics. New Delhi: Amerind Publishing, 130–36.Google Scholar

Tajima, Matsuji. 1985. The syntactic development of the gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar

Tanabe, Harumi. 1999. Composite predicates and phrasal verbs in The Paston Letters. In Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 97–132.Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2006a. Phrasal verbs in Late Middle and Early Modern English: Combinations with back, down, forth, out and up. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus, & Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, 213–28.Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2006b. Phrasal verbs in everyday English: 1500–1700. In Johnston, Andrew James, von Mengden, Ferdinand, & Thim, Stefan (eds.), Language and text: Current perspectives on English and Germanic historical linguistics and philology. Heidelberg: Winter, 291–306.Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2007. The rise of the phrasal verb in English: A case of Scandinavian influence? In Stierstorfer, Klaus (ed.), Anglistentag 2007 Münster: Proceedings of the Conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English 29. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 291–304.Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2011. On the phrasal verbs in some Paston Letters. In Bauer, Renate & Krischke, Ulrike (eds.), More than words: English lexicography and lexicology past and present: Essays presented to Hans Sauer on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Part I. Bern: Peter Lang, 355–85.Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2012. Phrasal verbs: The English verb-particle construction and its history. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1991. Stripping the layers: Language and content of Fanny Burney’s early journals. English Studies 72.2: 146–59.Google Scholar

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

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2005. Eighteenth-century English letters: In search of the vernacular. Linguistica e Filologia 21: 113–46.Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2009. An introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, & van der Wurff, Wim. 2009. Introduction. In van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Current issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, 9–31.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.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

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1991. Review of Laurel J. Brinton, The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Studies in Language 15: 221–6.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the Twelfth International Conference of Historical Linguistics (ICHL XII), Manchester 1995. Version 11/97. Available at: www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdfGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2001. Legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality. Paper presented at Freiburg University, 17 October 2001. Available at: www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/Freiburg.Unidirect.pdfGoogle Scholar

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

Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Heine, Bernd. 1991. Introduction. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–14.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010a. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 19–44.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2010b. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme, & Norde, Muriel. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. In Norde, Muriel, Lenz, Alexandra, & Beijering, Karin (eds.), Language Sciences 36 (Special issue on current trends in grammaticalization research): 32–46.Google Scholar

Ungerer, Friedrich. 2002. When news stories are no longer just stories: The emergence of the top-down structure in news reports in English newspapers. In Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel, & Lehmann, Hans Martin (eds.), Text types and corpora: Studies in honour of Udo Fries. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 105–22.Google Scholar

Valle, Ellen. 1999. A collective intelligence: The life sciences in the Royal Society as a scientific discourse community, 1665–1965 (Anglicana Turkuensia 17). PhD dissertation, University of Turku (Finland).Google Scholar

Van Dongen, Wilhelmus. 1919. He puts on his hat and He puts his hat on. Neuphilologus 4: 322–53.Google Scholar

Van Kemenade, Ans, & Los, Bettelou. 2003. Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Japp (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 79–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vestergaard, Torben. 1974. Review of The phrasal verb in English, by Dwight Bolinger. English Studies 55: 303–8.Google Scholar

Visser, Frederick T. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, Vol. I. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

Viti, Carlotta. 2015. On degrammaticalization: Controversial points and possible explanations. Folia Linguistica 49.2: 381–419.Google Scholar

Walková, Milada. 2013. The aspectual function of particles in phrasal verbs. PhD dissertation, Center for language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Groningen and the Faculty of Arts of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice.Google Scholar

Widlitzki, Bianca, & Huber, Magnus. 2016. Taboo language and swearing in 18th century and 19th century English: A diachronic study based on the Old Bailey Corpus. In López-Couso, María José, Méndez-Naya, Belén, Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma, & Palacios-Martínez, Ignacio M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics on the move: Exploring and understanding English through corpora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 313–36.Google Scholar

Wild, Kate. 2010. Attitudes towards English usage in the Late Modern Period: The case of phrasal verbs. PhD dissertation, College of Arts, School of Critical Studies, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions of lexically related and head of a word. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–74.Google Scholar

Willis, David. 2007. Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics 45.2: 271–310.Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2004. The have-perfect in Old English. In Kay, Christian J., Horobin, Simon, & Smith, Jeremy (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 243–55.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2006. Prescriptivism and preposition stranding in eighteenth-century prose. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 6. Available at: www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/articles.htmGoogle Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2007. Preposition stranding and prescriptivism in English from 1500 to 1900: A corpus-based approach. PhD dissertation, School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures, The University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2008a. To end or not to end a sentence with a preposition: An eighteenth-century debate. In Beal, Joan, Nocera, Carmela, & Sturiale, Massimo (eds.), Perspectives on prescriptivism. Bern: Peter Lang, 237–64.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2008b. Preposition stranding in the eighteenth-century: Something to talk about. In van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon (ed.), Grammars, grammarians, and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 251–78.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2011. ARCHER past and present (1990–2010). ICAME Journal 35: 205–36.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015a. Grammar, rhetoric and usage in English: Preposition placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015b. Have you ever written a diary or a journal? Diurnal prose and register variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 116.2: 639–64.Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2016. Daily jottings: Preposition placement in diaries and travel journals from 1500 to 1900. Folia Linguistica Historica 37: 281–314.Google Scholar

Zhi, Lu, & Juan, Sun. 2015. A view of research on English polysemous phrasal verbs. Journal of Literature and Art Studies 5.8: 649–59.Google Scholar