Book contents
- Standardising English
- Standardising English
- Copyright page
- Contents
- List of Figures, Maps and Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Norms and Margins: Ideology and Concepts
- Part II Norms and Margins: A Historical Perspective
- Part III Norms and Margins: Moving into the Twenty-First Century
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Part I - Norms and Margins: Ideology and Concepts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 March 2018
Book contents
- Standardising English
- Standardising English
- Copyright page
- Contents
- List of Figures, Maps and Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Norms and Margins: Ideology and Concepts
- Part II Norms and Margins: A Historical Perspective
- Part III Norms and Margins: Moving into the Twenty-First Century
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Standardising EnglishNorms and Margins in the History of the English Language, pp. 1 - 62Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Ager, D. E. (2001). Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Aitchison, J. (1997). The Language Web: The Power and Problem of Words – The 1996 BBC Reith Lectures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auroux, S. (1992). Le Histoire des idées linguistiques: La naissance des metalangages en Orient et en occident, vol 1, Liège: Maradaga.Google Scholar
Anderwald, L. (2012). Variable past-tense forms in nineteenth century American English: Linking normative grammars and language change. American Speech, 87 (3), 257–293.Google Scholar
Auer, A. and Gonzälez-Diaz, V. (2005). Eighteenth-century prescriptivism in English: A re-evaluation of its effects on actual language usage. Multilingua, 24, 317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. (2016). Codification and prescription in linguistic standardization: myths and models. In Feliu, F., ed., Constructing Languages: Norms, Myths and Emotions, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–129.Google Scholar
Bartsch, R. (1985). The influence of language standardization on linguistic norms. Studia Linguistica 39, 23–50. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1467–9582.1985.tb00743.xGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, R. (1987). Norms of Language: Theoretical and Practical Aspects, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Beal, J. C., Nocera, C. and Sturiale, M. (2008). Perspectives on Prescriptivism (Linguistic Insights 73), Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Burke, P. (2004). Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N. and Kristiansen, T. (2011). SLICE: Critical perspectives on language de(standardisation). In Coupland, N. and Kristiansen, T., eds., Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, Oslo: Novus Press, pp. 11–38.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1996 [1987]). Conventional conventionalization: Planned change in language. In Huebner, T., ed., Sociolinguistic Perspectives: Papers on Language in Society, 1959–1994, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 304–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2003). Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In Frank, R. M and Pütz, M, eds., Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 25–68.Google Scholar
Gijsbert, R., Vosters, R. and Vandenbussche, W. (2014). Norms and Usage in Language History 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (2012). Variation, structure and norms. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 10 (2), 294–314.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. I. (1972). The Ecology of Language, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. I. (1987). Blessings of Babel:. Bilingualism and Language Planning. Problems and Pleasures, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, R. (2010). Varieties of English in Writing: The Written Word as Linguistic Evidence, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hickey, R. (2012). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Humphrys, J. (2005). Lost for Words: The Mangling and Manipulation of the English Language, London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (1987). Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, B. (2000). The Forest for the Trees: An Editor's Advice to Writers, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marsh, G. P. (1860). Lectures on the English Language, Rev. and enlarged edn, New York: C. Scribner.Google Scholar
Mattheier, K. J. (1997). Über Destandardisierung, Umstandardisierung und Standardisierung in modernen europäischen Standardsprachen. In Mattheier, K. J. and Radtke, E., eds., Standardisierung und Destandardisierung europäischer Nationalsprachen, Frankfurt: Lang, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. and Stanford, J. N. (2015). The changing face of sociolinguistics with a global perspective. In Smakman, D. and Heinrich, P., eds., Globalising Sociolinguistics, London: Routledge, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
McIntyre, J. E. (2015). Anything goes. Baltimore Sun. www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-anything-goes-20150104-story.html; accessed 2 August 2015.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (2001), Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5, 530–555. doi: 10.1111/1467–9481.00163Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 3rd edn, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, L. (2003). Talking Proper: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1989). Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Vol 4, Language: The Socio-Cultural Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit.Google Scholar
Patrick, P. L. (2002). The speech community. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P and Schilling-Estes, N, eds., The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 573–597.Google Scholar
Percy, C. and Davidson, M. C. (2012). The Languages of Nation: Attitudes and Norms, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2012). False fronts in the language wars. Slate. www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_good_word/2012/05/steven_pinker_on_the_false_fronts_in_the_language_wars_.html.Google Scholar
Polzenhagen, F. and Dirven, R. (2008). Rationalist and romantic models in globalisation. In Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems [CLR Cognitive Linguistics Research 39]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–300.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (2009). 50 years of stupid grammar advice. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (32), B15. http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. J. (1990). Normativity and linguistic form. In Davis, H. G and Taylor, T. J, eds., Redefining Linguistics (RLE Linguistics A: General Linguistics), Oxon: Routledge, pp. 118–148.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isn't. In Bex, T and Watts, R. J., eds., Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 117–128.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2002). Sociolinguistic Variation and Change, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Truss, L. (2003). Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. New York: Gotham Books.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
References
Auer, P. ed. (2007). Style and Social Identities: Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bex, T. and Watts, R. J., eds. (1999). Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1990). Demythologising sociolinguistics: Why language does not reflect society. In Joseph, J. E. and Taylor, T. J., eds., Ideologies of Language, London: Routledge, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (1988). Dialect in Use: Sociolinguistic Variation in Cardiff English, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2001). Language, situation and the relational self: Theorising dialect style in sociolinguistics. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J.R., eds., Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185–210.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language Variation and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. (2003). Standard English and the Politics of Language, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2001). Style and social meaning. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R., eds., Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–126.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2009). Communities of practice. In Mey, J., ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 2nd edn, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 109–112.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R., eds. (2001). Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. (2000). The spectator, the politics of social networks, and language standardisation in eighteenth-century England. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
Gellner, E. (2009). Nations and Nationalism. New Perspectives, 2nd revised edn, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87–105.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Powesland, P. (1975). Speech Style and Social Evaluation, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Honey, J. (1997). Language and Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Hope, J. (2000). Rats, bats, sparrows and dogs: Biology, linguistics and the nature of Standard English. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. (1755). A Dictionary of the English Language, two volumes, London. Reprinted in facsimile, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1868.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City, Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular, Oxford: Basic Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lahire, B. (2004). La Culture des individus, dissonances culturelles et distinction de soi, Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1994). The Cambridge History of the English Language III: 1476–1776, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowth, R. (1762). A Short Introduction to English Grammar, 2nd edn 1763, London: A. Millar, R. and J. Dodsley.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1977). Language, Social Class and Education: A Glasgow Study, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1970). The German Ideology, 1st edn 1932, London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (1998). Word on the Street: Debunking the Myth of ‘Pure’ Standard English, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1999). The consequences of standardisation in descriptive linguistics. In Bex, T. and Watts, R. J., eds., Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 16–39.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (2002). The legitimate language: Giving a history to English. In Watts, R. J. and Trudgill, P., eds., Alternative Histories of English, London: Routledge, pp. 7–25.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, L. (2003). Talking Proper: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, L. (2005). Lost for Words. The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, L. (1795). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations for Assisting the More Advanced Students to Write with Perspicuity and Accuracy. Reprint 1809, New York: Collins and Perkins.Google Scholar
Özkirimli, U. (2010). Theories of Nationalism. A Critical Introduction, 2nd edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. and McNair-Knox, F. (1994). Addressee- and topic-influenced style-shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E., eds., Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 235–276.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. and Rickford, R. J. (2000). Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rousse, J. and Verrac, M. (1992). Section 3: Grande-Bretagne. In Auroux, S., ed., Histoire des idées linguistiques 2. Le Développement de la grammaire occidentale, Liège: Pierre Mardaga, pp. 339–358.Google Scholar
Sheridan, T. (1761). A Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties. Which Occur, in Learning the English Tongue. With a Scheme for Publishing an English Grammar and Dictionary, upon a Plan Entirely New, London: R. and J. Dodsley.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2012). Langue et autorité. De l'ordre linguistique à la force dialogique, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1877). Dialects and prehistoric forms of Old English. Transactions of the Philological Society 1875–6. London, 543–569.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2011). The Bishop's Grammar. Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1995). Sociolinguistics. An Introduction to Language and Society, revised edn, London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1791). A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary, London: G. G. J. and J. Robinson and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1999). The social construction of Standard English: Grammar writers as a ‘discourse community’. In Bex, T. and Watts, R. J., eds., Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 40–68.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (2000). Mythical strands in the ideology of prescriptivism. In Wright, L., ed., The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. and Trudgill, P., eds. (2002). Alternative Histories of English, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech, Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wright, L., ed. (2000). The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
References
Aitchison, J. (1981). Language Change, Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities, Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bacon, F. (1620). The New Organon. Reprint 2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beal, J. C. (2007). John Walker: Prescriptivist or linguistic innovator? In Dossena, M. and Jones, C., eds., Insights into Late Modern English, 2nd edn, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 83–106.Google Scholar
Beal, J. C. (2008). ‘Shamed by your English?’ The market value of a ‘good pronunciation. In Beal, J. C., Nicer, C. and Sturiale, M., eds., Perspectives on Prescriptivism, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
Beal, J. C., Nicer, C. and Sterile, M., eds. (2008). Perspectives on Prescriptives, Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Beattie, J. (1787). Scoticisms, arranged in Alphabetical Order, Designed to Correct Improprieties of Speech and Writing, Edinburgh: William Creech and T. Cadell.Google Scholar
Berkeley, G. A. (1710). Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Dublin: Aaron Rhames, Jeremy Pepyat.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2008). A nation is a territory with one culture and one language: The role of metaphorical folk models in language policy debates. In Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 301–331.Google Scholar
Berthele, R. (2010). Investigations into the folk's mental models of linguistic varieties. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G. and Peirsman, Y., eds., Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 265–290.Google Scholar
Blair, H. (1783). Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-lettres. Reprint 1812, vol 1, London: Cadell and W. Davies.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. (1776). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Reprint 1858, New York: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Chapman, D. (2008). The eighteenth-century grammarians as language experts. In van Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon, ed., Grammars, Grammarians, and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D'Andrade, R. G. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In Holland, D. and Quinn, N., eds., Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 112–148.Google Scholar
D'Andrade, R. G. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In D'Andrade, R. G. and Strauss, C., eds., Human Motives and Cultural Models, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Defoe, D. (1697). Essay on Projects. Reprint 1843. In Huzlitt, W., ed., The Works of Daniel Defoe, with a Memoir of His Life and Writing, vol III, London: J. Clements, pp. 9–48.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Frank, R. M. and Pütz, M., eds. (2003). Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O. and Wurzel, W. U., eds. (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural Morfhology, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. and Nänny, M., eds. (2001). The Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2003). Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In Dirven, R., Frank, R. M. and Pütz, M., eds., Cognitive Models in Language and Thought: Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 25–68.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G. and Peirsman, Y., eds. (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1995). Isomorphism in grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. In Simone, R., ed., Iconicity in Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 47–76.Google Scholar
Guermanova, N. (1999). National profiles of language perception: Instrumental vs cultural-value conception. In Beedham, C., ed., Langue and Parole in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective, Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 307–319.Google Scholar
Hamann, J. G. (1762). Aesthetica in Nuce. Reprint 2007. In Hamann, J. G.. Writings on Philosophy and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 60–96.Google Scholar
Haney, D. P. (2010). William Wordsworth and the Hermeneutics of Incarnation, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. I. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In Cobarrubias, J. and Fishman, J. A., eds., Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 269–289.Google Scholar
Hickey, R., ed. (2012). Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan, or, the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, London: Andrew Cooke.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. J. and Ranger, T., eds. (1992). The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, D. and Quinn, N., eds. (1987). Cultural Models in Language and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Humboldt, W. von. (1836). On Language, On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Reprint 1999, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kames, Lord (Henry Home) (1762). Elements of Criticism. Reprint 1838, New York: F. J. Huntington.Google Scholar
Knowles, J. (1796). The Principles of English Grammar; with Critical Remarks and Exercises of False Construction, Adapted to the Use of Schools and Private Tutors, London: Printed for the author.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., eds. (2008). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, S. A. (1929). The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700–1800, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1690). An Essay on Human Understanding. Reprint 1836, London: T. Tegg and Son.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1999). The consequences of standardization in descriptive linguistics. In Bex, T. and Watts, R. J., eds., Standard English: The Widening Debate, London: Routledge, pp. 16–39.Google Scholar
Monboddo, Lord (James Burnett) (1774). Of the Origin and Progress of Language, vol II, Edinburgh: J. Balfour and. T. Caldell.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, L. (2012). Introduction. In Mugglestone, L., ed., The Oxford History of English, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Murray, L. (1795). English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. With an Appendix, Containing Rules and Observations for Assisting the More Advanced Students to Write with Perspicuity and Accuracy. Reprint 1809, New York: Collins and Perkins.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Percy, C. and Davidson, M. C., eds. (2012). The Languages of Nation: Attitudes and Norms, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Poldauf, I. (1948). On the History of Some Problems of English Grammar before 1800, Prague: Nákl Filosofické fakulty University Karlovy.Google Scholar
Polzenhagen, F. and Dirven, R. (2008). Rationalist or romantic model in globalization. In Kristiansen, G. and Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics, Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–299.Google Scholar
Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A. and Reif, M., eds. (2014). Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation in Cognition and Language Use, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A. (1828). Kritische Schriften und Briefe. Reprint 1963, vol 2, Stuttgart: Edgar Lohner.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in Mind, Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2010). The Bishop's Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon Van Ostade, I. and Van Der Wurff, W., eds. (2009). Current Issues in Late Modern English, Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ward, W. (1765). An Essay on Grammar, as It May Be Applied to the English Language, in Two Treatises, London: R. Horsfield.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. and Trudgill, P., eds. (2002). Alternative Histories of English, London: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
Whately, R. (1828). Elements of Rhetoric, Comprising an Analysis of the Laws of Moral Evidence and of Persuasion, with Rules for Argumentative Composition and Elocution. Reprint 1871, New York: Sheldon and Co.Google Scholar
Willems, K. and De Cuypere, L., eds. (2008). Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, W. (1810). Essay upon epitaphs. Reprint 1967. In Owen, W. J. B. and Smyser, J. W., eds., The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, vol 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press, vol. 2, pp. 43–119.Google Scholar
Wright, L., ed. (2000). The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar