Aarts, Flor and Aarts, Bas. 2002. ‘Relative whom: “a mischief-maker”.’ In: Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel and Lehmann, Hans-Martin (eds.). Text Types and Corpora. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 123–130.Google Scholar

Aarts, Jan. 1991. ‘Intuition-based and observation-based grammars.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London and New York: Longman, pp. 44–62.Google Scholar

Aarts, Jan and Meijs, Willem (eds.). 1984. Corpus Linguistics. Recent Developments in the Use of Computer Corpora in English Language Research. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Adamczewski, Henri. 1982. Grammaire linguistique de l'anglais. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Aitchison, Jean. 1991. Language Change: Progress or Decay?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Akimoto, Minoji. 1989. A Study of Verbo-nominal Structures in English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar

Algeo, John. 1992. ‘British and American mandative constructions.’ In: Blank, Claudia (ed.). Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honor of Otto Hietsch. Vol. II. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 599–617.Google Scholar

Algeo, John. 1995. ‘Having a look at the expanded predicate.’ In: Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–217.Google Scholar

Allerton, David J. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English (Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The Genitive v. the of Construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in 17th Century English (Lund Studies in English 62). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt. 1991. ‘A bibliography of publications relating to English computer corpora.’ In: Johansson and Stenström, pp. 355–396.CrossRef

Anderson, John M. 2001. ‘Modals, subjunctives, and (non-)finiteness.’ English Language and Linguistics 5(1), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnaud, Réné. 2002. ‘Letter writers of the Romantic Age and the modernization of English (A quantitative historical survey of the progressive).’ http://web.univ-pau.fr/saes/pb/bibliographies/A/arnaud/romanticletterwriters.pdf [accessed 8 December 2007].

Ashley, Mike. 2000. The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazine from the Beginning to 1950. The History of the Science-Fiction Magazine, Vol. 1. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, Anita. 2006. ‘Precept and practice: The influence of prescriptivism on the English subjunctive.’ In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.). Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms. English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar

Axelsson, Margareta Westergren. 1998. Contraction in British Newspapers in the Late 20th Century. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Bailey, Richard W. 1996. Nineteenth-Century English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-Day English. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar

Barbieri, Federica. 2005. ‘Quotative use in American English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 33(2), 222–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barlow, Michael. 2003. Concordancing and Corpus Analysis Using MP 2.2. Houston, TX: Athelstan.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change: An Introduction to the Study of Linguistic Change in Standard Englishes in the Twentieth Century. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Bell, Allan. 1984. ‘Language style as audience design.’ Language in Society 13(2), 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bergenholtz, Henning and Schaeder, Burkhard (eds.). 1979. Empirische Textwissenschaft: Aufbau und Auswertung von Text-Corpora. Königstein: Scriptor.

Berglund, Ylva. 1997. ‘Future in Present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions.’ ICAME Journal 21, 7–20.Google Scholar

Berglund, Ylva. 2000. ‘Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus.’ In: Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne (eds.). Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. ‘The progressive in Romance, as compared with English.’ In: Dahl, Östen (ed.). Tense and Aspect in the Language of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 559–604.

Bevier, Thyra Jane. 1931. ‘American use of the subjunctive.’ American Speech 6(3), 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas 1987. ‘A textual comparison of British and American writing.’ American Speech 62(2), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1993. ‘Representativeness in corpus design.’ Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2001. ‘Dimensions of variation in 18th century registers.’ In: Diller, Hans-Jürgen and Görlach, Manfred (eds.). Towards a History of English as a History of Genres. Heidelberg: C. Winter [reprinted in: Conrad and Biber (eds.), pp. 201–214].Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2003a. ‘Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy.’ In: Aitchison, Jean and Lewis, Diana M. (eds.). New Media Language. London: Routledge, pp. 169–181.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2003b. ‘Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis.’ In: Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). Corpus Analysis. Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2004. ‘Modal use across registers and time.’ In: Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberly (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language II. Unfolding Conversations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–216.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Clark, Victoria. 2002. ‘Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures.’ In: Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María and Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.). English Historical Morphology. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September, 2000. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 43–66.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics. Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1997. ‘Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Lena (eds.). To Explain the Present. Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, pp. 253–275.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blake, Norman. 1996. A History of the English Language. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blyth, Carl, Recktenwald, Sigrid and Wang, Jenny. 1990. ‘“I'm like, ‘Say what!’.” A new quotative in American narrative discourse.’American Speech 65(3), 215–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bodine, Anne. 1975. ‘Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they,” sex-indefinite “he,” and “he or she”.’ Language in Society 4(2), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. ‘Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries.’ In: Brettschneider, Gunter and Lehmann, Christian (eds.). Wege zur Universalienforschung. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 292–299.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel. 1996. ‘Attitudes towards increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 24, 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.). 1999. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRef

Bruyndonx, Jim. 2001. The Expanded Form in British English. Meanings and Constraints: A Corpus-illustrated Description. Unpublished PhD thesis, CatholicUniversity of Leuven.Google Scholar

Bryant, Margaret M. (ed.). 1962. Current American Usage. New York: Funk & Wagnalls.

Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006. ‘Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(1), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bundt, Harry and Black, William. 2000. Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Burchfield, Robert W. 3 1996. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Butters, Ronald. 1980. ‘Narrative go “say”.’ American Speech 55, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butters, Ronald. 1982. ‘Editor's note [on be like “think”].’ American Speech 57, 149.Google Scholar

Buyssens, Eric. 1968. Les Deux Aspectifs de la Conjugaison Anglaise au XXe Siècle. Brussels: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan and Pagliuca, William. 1985. ‘Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning.’ In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 59–83.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, Revere, D.Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael. 1999. ‘The English get-passive in spoken discourse.’ English Language and Linguistics 3(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cattell, Norman Raymond. 1984. Composite Predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1982. ‘Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature.’ In: Tannen, Deborah (ed.). Spoken and Written Language. Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar

Chappell, Hilary.1980. ‘Is the get-passive adversative?’ Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 13(3), 411–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charleston, Britta. 1960. Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means of Expression in Modern English. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Christ, Oliver. 1994. ‘A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system.’ Proceedings of complex '94: Third Conference on Computational Lexicography and Text Research (Budapest, July 7–10, 1994). Budapest, pp. 23–32.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English. A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia. 2008. ‘Historical corpora.’ In: Lüdeling and Kytö (eds.), pp. 242–259.

Close, Reginald A. 1988. ‘The future in English.’ In: Bald, Wolf-Dietrich (ed.). Kernprobleme der Englischen Grammatik: Sprachliche Fakten und Ihre Vermittlung. Munich: Langenscheidt-Longman, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Meanings of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer and Leech, Geoffrey. 1980. ‘The meanings of the modals in British and American English.’ York Papers in Linguistics 8, 22–34.Google Scholar

Collins, Peter C. 1996. ‘Get-passives in English.’ English World-Wide 15(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.). 2001. Variation in English. Multi-dimensional Studies. Harlow: Longman.

Cort, Alison and Denison, David. 2005. ‘The category modal – a moving target?’ Paper presented at the First International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, University of Edinburgh.

Crawford, William J. 2009. ‘The mandative subjunctive.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 2004. The Stories of English. Woodstock and New York: Overlook Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Danchev, Andrei and Kytö, Merja. 2002. ‘The go-futures in English and French as an areal feature.’ Nowele 40, 9–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davidse, Kristin and Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. ‘On the middle construction in English and Dutch.’ In: Granger, Sylviane, Lerot, Jacques and Petch-Tyson, Stephanie (eds.). Corpus-Based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 57–73.Google Scholar

Haan, Pieter. 2002. ‘Whom is not dead?’ In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 215–228.Google Scholar

Declerck, Renaat. 1991a. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Declerck, Renaat. 1991b. Tense in English. Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. Verbal Constructions. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1998. ‘Syntax.’ In: Suzanne Romaine (ed), pp. 92–329.

Denison, David. 2001. ‘Gradience and linguistic change.’ In: Brinton, Laurel (ed.). Historical Linguistics. 1999. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dennis, Leah. 1940. ‘The progressive tense: Frequency of its use in English.’ Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 55, 855–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Depraetere, Ilse. 2003. ‘On verbal concord with collective nouns in British English.’ English Language Linguistics, 7(1), 85–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ding, Daniel. 2002. ‘The passive voice and social values in science.’ Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 32(2), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Downing, Angela. 1996. ‘The semantics of get-passives.’ In: Hasan, Ruqaiya, Cloran, Carmel and Butt, David (eds.). Functional Descriptions. Theory in Practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elsness, Johan. 1994. ‘On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English.’ ICAME Journal 18, 5–25.Google Scholar

Elsom, John. 1984. ‘The sad decline of the subjunctive.’ Contemporary Review 245, 36–40.Google Scholar

Facchinetti, Roberta. 2002. ‘Be able to in Present-day British English.’ In: Kettemann, Bernhard and Marko, Georg (eds.). Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 117–130.Google Scholar

Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.). 2003. Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 1996a. ‘On the historical developments of English retrospective verbs.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97, 71–79.Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 1996b. ‘The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760).’ Diachronica 13, 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1990. ‘Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences.’ Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26, 137–162.Google Scholar

Markku, Filppula,. 2002. The English progressive on the move. Paper presented at International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, August 2002.

Fischer, Olga. 1992. ‘Syntax.’ In: Blake, Norman (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga and Wurff, Wim. 2006. ‘Syntax.’ In: Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.). A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2004. ‘The meaning and uses of the progressive construction in an early eighteenth-century English Network.’ In: Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberly (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding Conversations. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 131–174.Google Scholar

Fleisher, Nicolas. 2006. ‘The origin of passive get.’ English Language and Linguistics 10(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fligelstone, Steven, Pacey, Mike and Rayson, Paul. 1997. ‘How to generalize the task of annotation.’ In: Garside et al., pp. 122–136.

Fong, Vivienne. 2004. ‘The verbal cluster.’ In: Lim, Lisa and Foley, Joseph A. (eds.). Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 75–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Foster, Brian. 1968. The Changing English Language. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, H. W.2 1965 [1926]. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Francis, W. Nelson. 1979. ‘Problems of assembling large computer corpora.’ In: Bergenholtz and Schaeder, pp. 110–123.

Francis, W. 1980. ‘A tagged corpus – problems and prospects.’ In: Greenbaum et al., pp. 192–209.

Francis, W. Nelson and Kučera, Henry. 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940. American English Grammar. The Grammatical Structure of Present-Day American English with Especial Reference to Social Differences or Class Dialects. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Gachelin, Jean-Marc. 1997. ‘The progressive and habitual aspects in Non-Standard Englishes.’ In: Schneider, Edgar (ed.). Englishes around the World. General Studies, British Isles, North America. Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garretson, Gregory and Ädel, Annelie. 2005. ‘Who's speaking?: Evidentiality in US newspapers during the 2004 presidential campaign’. Paper presented at the ICAME 26 and AAACL6 conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 12–15 May 2005.

Garside, Roger, Leech, Geoffrey and McEnery, Anthony (eds.). 1997. Corpus Annotation. Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar

Garside, Roger and Smith, Nicholas. 1997. ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS 4.’ In: Garside et al., pp. 102–121.

Geisler, Christer. 2007. ‘A multivariate investigation of written British and American English.’ Anonymous submission to Corpus Linguistics 2007, Birmingham, 27–30 July 2007.

Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gonzáles-Álvarez, Dolores. 2003. ‘If he come vs. if he comes, if he shall come: Some remarks on the subjunctive in conditional protases in Early Modern and Late Modern English.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104, 303–313.Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane. 1983. The BE + Past Participle Construction in Spoken English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia. 1975. ‘How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question.’ In: Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 107–141.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1986. ‘The Grammar of Contemporary English and A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.’ In: Leitner, Gerhard (ed.). The English Reference Grammar. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 6–14.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (eds.). 1980. Studies in English Linguistics. For Randolph Quirk. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney and Whitcut, Janet. 1988. Longman Guide to English Usage. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2002. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York and London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Grund, Peter and Walker, Terry. 2006. ‘The subjunctive in adverbial clauses in nineteenth-century English.’ In: Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.). Nineteenth-Century English. Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–109.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. ‘The get-passive and Burzio's generalization.’ Lingua 66, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, Christian. 3 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold [1st edn Halliday, M.A.K., 1985].Google Scholar

Hancil, Sylvie. 1996. ‘Subjectivity, politeness and the progressive form.’ Proceedings of the Edinburgh Linguistics Department Conference 1996, pp. 112–117.Google Scholar

Hardie, Andrew and McEnery, Tony. 2004. ‘The were-subjunctive in British rural dialects: Marrying corpus and questionnaire data.’ Computers and the Humanities 37, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hardy, Donald E. 2004. ‘The role of linguistics in interpretation: The case of grammatical voice.’ Belgian Journal of English Language and Literature 2, 31–48.Google Scholar

Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1989. Lesen, Lehren, Lernen: Eine Rezeptive Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Heyvaert, Lisbet. 2003. A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. ‘Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in Early Modern English.’ In: Brinton, Laurel and Minoji Akimoto (eds.), pp. 133–165.

Hinrichs, Lars, Smith, Nicholas and Waibel, Birgit. forthcoming. The Part-of-speech-tagged ‘Brown’ Corpora: A Manual of Information, including Pointers to Successful Use. https://webspace.utexas.edu/lh9896/public/hinrichs/Manual_final.pdf.

Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora.’ English Language and Linguistics 11(3), 335–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirtle, Walter. 1967. The Simple and Progressive Forms: An Analytical Approach. Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Achim. 1972. ‘Die verbo-nominale Konstruktion: eine spezifische Form der nominalen Ausdrucksweise im modernen Englisch.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 20, 158–183.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 1997. Mandative Sentences. A Study of Variation on the Basis of the British National Corpus. Unpublished Lizentiats-Arbeit, UniversitäZürich.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hofland, Knut and Johansson, Stig. 1982. Word Frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: Norwegian Computer Centre for the Humanities.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 2 2001 [1992]. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hommerberg, Charlotte and Tottie, Gunnel. 2007. ‘Try to or try and? Verb complementation in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 31, 45–64.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘On some principles of grammaticalization.’ In: Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hübler, Axel. 1992. ‘On the get-passive.’ In: Busse, Wilhelm G. (ed.). Anglistentag 1991. Proceedings. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 89–101.Google Scholar

Hübler, Axel. 1998. The Expressivity of Grammar: Grammatical Devices Expressing Emotion across Time. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 1980. ‘Criteria for auxiliaries and modals.’ In: Greenbaum et al., pp. 65–78.

Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2005. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 1994. ‘About 37% of word-tokens are nouns.’ Language 70, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 1997. ‘Has BrE been catching up with AmE over the past thirty years?’ In: Ljung, Magnus (ed.). Corpus-based Studies in English. Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17), Stockholm, May 15–19, 1996. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 1998a. New Zealand English Grammar. Fact or Fiction. A Corpus-Based Study of Morphosyntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 1998b. ‘It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of English.’ In: Lindquist, Hans, Klintborg, Staffan, Levin, Magnus and Estling, Maria (eds.). The Major Varieties of English (Papers from MAVEN 97). Växjö: Acta Wexionensia, pp. 159–175.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2001. ‘What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-constructions.’ Studies in Language 25(1), 49–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2004a. ‘Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in modern English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8(1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2004b. ‘The passival and the progressive passive: A case study of layering in the English aspect and voice systems.’ In: Lindquist, and Mair, (eds.), pp. 79–120.

Hundt, Marianne. 2006. ‘“Curtains like these are selling right in the City of Chicago for $1.50”: The mediopassive in American 20th-century advertising language.’ In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.). The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English Mediopassive Constructions. A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Study of their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2009a. ‘Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change?’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 2009b. ‘Global feature – local norms? A case study on the progressive passive.’ In: Siebers, Lucia and Hoffmann, Tobias (eds.). World Englishes: Problems – Properties – Prospects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. forthcoming a. ‘These books (will) sell (well) – the development of constraints on mediopassives formation in late Modern and Present Day English advertising copy.’

Hundt, Marianne. forthcoming b. ‘How often do things get V-ed in Philippine and Singapore English? A case study on the get-passive in two outer-circle varieties of English.’

Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘“Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja and Biewer, Carolin (eds.). 2007. Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Sven. 1980. ‘Issues in the study of syntactic variation.’ In Jacobson, Sven, (ed.). Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. pp. 23–36.Google Scholar

James, Francis. 1986. Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, 7 vols. London: George Allen and Unwin/Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1984. Analytic Syntax. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press [First published 1937].Google Scholar

Jin, Koichi. 2002. ‘On the middle voice in present-day English.’ In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology. A Festschrift for Okio Oizumi. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 139–155.Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig. 1980. Plural Attributive Nouns in Present-Day English. (Lund Studies in English 59). Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey and Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Manual of Information for the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus for Digital Computers. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig and Norheim, Else Helene. 1988. ‘The subjunctive in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 12, 27–36.Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig and Oksefjell, Signe. 1996. ‘Towards a unified account of the syntax and semantics of get.’ In: Thomas, Jenny and Short, Michael (eds.). Using Corpora for Language Research: Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Leech. London: Longman, pp. 57–75.Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig and Stenström, Anna-Brita (eds.). 1991. English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2 vols. London.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2004. ‘The editor's department.’ Language 80, 381–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1992. Social Stylistics. Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kearns, Kate. 2003. ‘Durative achievements and individual-level predicates on events.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 26(5), 595–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Graeme. 2001. ‘The distribution of agent marking and finiteness as possible contributors to the difficulty of passive voice structures.’ In: Aijmer, Karin (ed.). A Wealth of English. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, pp. 39–46.Google Scholar

Killie, Kristin. 2004. ‘Subjectivity and the English progressive.’ English Language and Linguistics 8, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohnen, Thomas. 2007. ‘From Helsinki through the centuries: The design and development of English diachronic corpora.’ In: Pahta, Päivi, Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu and Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.). Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 2: Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/02/kohnen.

König, Ekkehard. 1980. ‘On the context-dependence of the Progressive in English.’ In: Rohrer, Christian (ed.). Time, Tense, and Quantifiers. Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 269–291.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 1995. ‘He is being obscure: non-verbal predication and the progressive.’ In: Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Dahl, Östen and Squartini, Mario (eds.). Temporal Reference, Aspect, and Actionality. Vol. II: Typological Approaches. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, pp. 155–167.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard and Lutzeier, Peter. 1973. ‘Bedeutung and Verwendung der Progressivform im heutigen Englisch.’ Lingua 32, 277–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 2006. ‘Syntactic variation in English: A global perspective.’ In:Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April (eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 603–624.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja and Romaine, Suzanne. 1997. ‘Competing forms of adjective comparison in Modern English: What could be more quicker and easier and more effective?’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 329–352.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. ‘Adjective comparison and standardization processes in American and British English from 1620 to the present.’ In: Wright, Laura (ed.). The Development of Standard English 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja, Rudanko, Juhani and Smitterberg, Erik. 2000. ‘Building a bridge between the present and the past: A corpus of 19th century English.’ ICAME Journal 24, 85–97.Google Scholar

Kranich, Svenja. 2007. ‘Interpretative progressives in Late Modern English.’ Paper presented at the 3rd Late Modern English Conference, Leiden, the Netherlands, 29 August–1 September 2007.

Krenn, Brigitte. 2000. The Usual Suspects. Data-oriented Models for Identification and Representation of Lexical Collocations. Saarbrücken: German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 1996. ‘Language change in progress: Contractions in journalese in 1961 and 1991/92.’ In: McGill, Steven (ed.). Proceedings of the 1995 Graduate Research Conference on Language and Linguistics (Exeter Working Papers in English Language Studies 1), pp. 17–28.

Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Labov, William. 1963. ‘The social motivation of a sound change.’ Word 19, 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Labov, William 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, William 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labuhn, Ute. 2001. Von Give a Laugh bis Have a Cry. Zu Aspektualität und Transitivität der V + N-Konstruktionen im Englischen. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1971. ‘Passive resistance.’ Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8, 149–162.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1990. Talking Power. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Lee, Yong Wey David. 2000. Modelling Variation in Spoken and Written Language: the Multi-dimensional Approach Revisited. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 1966. English in Advertising. A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992.’ In: Facchinetti et al., pp. 223–240.

Leech, Geoffrey.3 2004 [1971]. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. ‘Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 61–81.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. ‘New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness,’ In: Hundt et al. 2007, pp. 133–149.CrossRef

Leech, Geoffrey and Coates, Jennifer. 1980. ‘Semantic indeterminacy and the modals.’ In: Greenbaum et al., pp. 79–90.

Leech, Geoffrey and Culpeper, Jonathan. 1997. ‘The comparison of adjectives in recent British English.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present. Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Societé Neophilologique, pp. 353–373.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Fallon, Roger. 1992. ‘Computer corpora: What do they tell us about culture?’ ICAME Journal 16, 1–22 [reprinted in: Sampson, Geoffrey and McCarthy, Diana (eds.). 2004. Corpus Linguistics. Readings in a Widening Discipline. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 160–173].Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Francis, Brian and Xu, Xunfeng. 1994. ‘The use of computer corpora in the textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories.’ In: Fuchs, Catherine and Victorri, Bernard (eds.). Continuity in Linguistic Semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Rayson, Paul and Wilson, Andrew. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2005. ‘Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel for LOB and F-LOB.’ ICAME Journal 29, 83–98.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2006. ‘Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992.’ In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.). The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi., pp. 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leonard, Rosemary. 1968. The Types and Currency of Noun + Noun Sequences in Prose Usage 1750–1950. Unpublished MPhil thesis, University of London.Google Scholar

Leonard, Rosemary. 1984. The Interpretation of English Noun Sequences on the Computer. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. Lund: Lund Studies in English.Google Scholar

Levin, Magnus. 2006. ‘Collective nouns and language change.’ English Language and Linguistics 10, 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindquist, Hans. 2000. ‘Livelier or more lively? Syntactic and contextual factors influencing the comparison of disyllabic adjectives.’ In: Kirk, John M. (ed.). Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 125–132.Google Scholar

Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian. 2004a. ‘Introduction.’ In: Lindquist, and Mair, (eds.), pp. ix–xiv.

Lindquist, Hans, and Mair, Christian (eds.). 2004b. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Live, Anna H. 1973. ‘The take-have phrasal in English.’ Linguistics 95, 31–50.Google Scholar

Ljung, Magnus. 1980. Reflections on the English Progressive (Gothenburg Studies in English 46). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the to Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja. 2008. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lyons, John. 1982. ‘Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sumA question mark before an example (invented or otherwise) indicates its questionable acceptability.’ In:Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang (eds.). Speech, Place and Action. New York: Wiley, pp. 101–124.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 1997. ‘The spread of the going-to-future in written English: A corpus-based investigation into language change in progress.’ In: Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanislaw (eds.). Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1537–1543.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian., 2002. ‘Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora.’ English Language and Linguistics 6, 105–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2004. ‘Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: Statistics, frequencies and beyond.’ In: Mair, Christian and Lindquist, Hans (eds.). Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006a. ‘Tracking ongoing grammatical change and recent diversification in Present-Day Standard English: The complementary role of small and large corpora.’ In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.). The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006b. Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne. 1995. ‘Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43(2), 111–122.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian, Hundt, Marianne, Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2002. ‘Short-term diachronic shifts in part-of-speech frequencies: A comparison of the tagged LOB and F-LOB corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian and Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. ‘Current change in English syntax.’ In: Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April (eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 318–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Makkai, Adam. 1977. ‘The passing of the syntactic age: A first look at the ecology of the English verb take.’ In: Makkai, Adam (ed.). Linguistics at the Crossroads. Padua: Liviana, pp. 79–104.Google Scholar

Marmaridou, Sophia A. S. 1991. What's so Proper about Names?Athens: Parousia.Google Scholar

Mazaud, Carolin. 2004. Complex Premodifiers in Present-Day English. A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, Heidelberg University.Google Scholar

McArthur, Tom (ed.). 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McEnery, Anthony and Xiao, Zhonghua. 2005. ‘Help or help to: What do corpora have to say?’ English Studies 86(2), 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meints, Kerstin. 2003. ‘To get or to be? Use and acquisition of get versus be passives: Evidence from children and adults.’ In: Cuyckens, Hubert, Berg, Thomas, Dirven, René and Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.). Motivation in Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyerhoff, Myriam and Niedzielski, Nancy. 2003. ‘The globalization of vernacular variation.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 534–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mindt, Dieter. 2000. An Empirical Grammar of the English Verb System. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar

Misztal, Barbara. 2000. Informality. Social Theory and Contemporary Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce and Robinson, Fred C.. 5 1992. A Guide to Old English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Moens, Marc and Steedman, Mark. 1988. ‘Temporal ontology and temporal reference.’ Computational Linguistics 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar

Möhlig, Ruth and Klages, Monika. 2002. ‘Detransitivization in the history of English from a semantic perspective.’ In: Pérez-Guerra, Javier, Fanego, Teresa and Couso, María José Lopez (eds.). English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2007. ‘Recalcitrant problems of comparative alternation and new insights emerging from Internet data.’ In: Hundt et al. 2007, pp. 211–232.CrossRef

Mossé, Fernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. 2 vols. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2004. ‘Corpus data in a usage-based cognitive grammar.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 85–100.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Müller, Ernst-August. 1978. Funktionsverbgefüge vom Typ ‘give a smile’ und ähnliche Konstruktionen. Eine Textorientierte Untersuchung im Rahmen eines doppelschichtigen Semantikmodells. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Myhill, John. 1995. ‘Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals.’ Linguistics. An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 33, 157–211.Google Scholar

Myhill, John. 1996. ‘The development of the strong obligation system in American English.’ American Speech 71(4), 339–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nakamura, Junsaku. 1991. ‘The relationship among genres in the LOB corpus based upon the distribution of grammatical tags.’ JACET Bulletin 22, 44–74.Google Scholar

Nehls, Dietrich. 1988. ‘On the development of the grammatical category of verbal aspect in English.’ In: Klegraf, Josef and Nehls, Dietrich (eds.). Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel's 60th Birthday. Heidelberg: Groos, pp. 173–198.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. ‘The spread of the progressive and its “future” use.’ English Language and Linguistics 11(1), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2002. ‘The rise of who in Early Modern English.’ In: Poussa, Patricia (ed.). Relativization on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 109–121.

Nickel, Gerhard. 1968. ‘Complex verbal structures in English.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics 6, 1–21 [reprinted in Dietrich Nehls (ed.). Studies in Descriptive English Grammar. Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 1978, pp. 63–83].Google Scholar

Nokkonen, Soili. 2006. ‘The semantic variation of NEED TO in four recent British corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11, 29–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nuñez Pertejo, Paloma. 2004. The Progressive in the History of English: with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period. A Corpus Based Study. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa. 2006. ‘The passive in nineteenth-century scientific writing.’ In: Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Eric (eds.). Nineteenth-Century English. Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–135.Google Scholar

Olofsson, Arne. 1990. ‘A participle caught in the act: On the prepositional use of following.’ Studia Neophilologica 62, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olsson, Yngve. 1961. On the Syntax of the English Verb with Special Reference to “have a look” and Similar Complex Structures (Gothenburg Studies in English 12). Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th Century (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 94). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R.2 1990 [1979]. Modality and the English Modals. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 1999. ‘Mood and modality: Basic principles.’ In: Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 229–235.Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R.2 2001 [1986]. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 2003. ‘Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues.’ In: Facchinetti et al., pp. 1–17.

Pauwels, Anne. 1998. ‘Feminist language planning: Has it been worthwhile?’ at http://www.linguistik-online.de/heft1_99/pauwels.htm. Linguistik online1, 1/98. Viewed 1 April 2009.

Peters, Pam. 1998. ‘The survival of the subjunctive: Evidence of its use in Australia and elsewhere.’ English World-Wide 19(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, Pam. 2000. ‘Paradigm split.’ In: Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne (eds.). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 1999). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 301–312.Google Scholar

Peters, Pam. 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, Karl R.2 1979 [1972]. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Potter, Simeon. 2 1975 [1969]. Changing English. London: Deutsch.Google Scholar

Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. For the Use of Continental, Especially Dutch, Students. Pt. 2, The Parts of Speech, Section 2, The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Pratt, Lynda and Denison, David. 2000. ‘The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle.’ Language Sciences 22, 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Ellen F. 1972. ‘A note on aspect in English: The take-a-walk construction.’ In: Plötz, Senta (ed.). Transformationelle Analyse. Frankfurt/Main: Athenäum, pp. 409–420.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph. 1995. Grammatical and Lexical Variance in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph and Rusiecki, Jan. 1982. ‘Grammatical data by elicitation.’ In: Anderson, John (ed.). Language Form and Linguistic Variation. Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raab-Fischer, Roswitha. 1995. ‘Löst der Genitiv die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützte Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43, 123–132.Google Scholar

Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rayson, Paul, Dawn Archer, Scott Piao and McEnery, Tony. 2004. ‘The UCREL semantic analysis system.’ In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP Tasks, in association with the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. (LREC2004), 25 May, 2004. Lisbon, pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew and Leech, Geoffrey. 2002. ‘Grammatical word class variation within the British National Corpus Sampler.’ In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Papers from the Twenty First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora – Sydney 2000. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 295–306.Google Scholar

Renský, Miroslav. 1966. ‘English verbo-nominal phrases: Some structural and stylistic aspects.’ Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1, 289–299.Google Scholar

Rickford, John R., Mendoza-Denton, Norma, Wasow, Thomas A. and Espinoza, Juli. 1995. ‘Syntactic variation and change in progress: Loss of the verbal coda in topic restricting as far as constructions.’ Language 71, 102–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rinzler, Simone. 2004. ‘Pragmatique d'un genre: Communication institutionelle, monologisme et aspect passif.’ Anglophonia 16, 207–225.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1986. ‘The choice of relative pronouns in seventeenth century American English.’ In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Historical Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 417–435.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. ‘Syntax.’ In: Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–331.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1990. ‘Aspekte einer vergleichenden Typologie des Englischen und Deutschen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Buch von John A. Hawkins.’ In: Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.). Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt, Bern, New York and Paris: Peter Lang, pp. 133–152.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. ‘On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English.’ English Studies 16, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. ‘Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English.’ Cognitive Linguistics 7, 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2006. ‘The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system.’ In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Rittand, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.). Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt/Main and Wien: Peter Lang, pp. 143–166.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). 1998. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah. 1991. ‘The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress.’ American Speech 66, 227–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Römer, Ute. 2005. Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. ‘Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 379–412.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. ‘On the track of noun+noun constructions in Modern English.’ In: Houswitschka, Christoph, Knappe, Gabriele and Müller, Anja (eds.). Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg. Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 543–557.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1999. Diachronic Studies of English Complementation Patterns. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2000. Corpora and Complementation. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. ‘Watching English grammar change: A case study on complement selection in British and American English.’ English Language and Linguistics 10, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ryan, William M. 1961. ‘Pseudo-subjunctive were.’ American Speech 36, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1975. ‘Noun-name collocations in British English newspaper language.’ Studia Neophilologica 47, 14–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1997. ‘On the panchronic core meaning of the English progressive.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 419–429.Google Scholar

Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan. 1973. ‘On the state of progress on progressives and statives.’ In: Bailey, Charles-James and Shuy, Roger (eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 83–95.Google Scholar

Salton, Gerard. 1989. Automatic Text Processing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Samuels, Michael. 1972. Linguistic Evolution. With Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, David. 1988. ‘Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation.’ In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.). Linguistics. The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 4: Language. the Socio-Cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. London: Harvest Books [original publisher Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.].Google Scholar

Scheffer, Johannes. 1975. The Progressive in English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Schlüter, Julia. 2009. ‘The conditional subjunctive.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 2005. ‘The subjunctive in Philippine English.’ In: Dayag, Danilo T. and Quakenbusch, J. Stephen (eds.). Linguistics and Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond. A Festschrift in Honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 27–40.Google Scholar

Scott, Mike. 1999. WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena. 2006a. ‘Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English.’ In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.). Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms. English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 191–211.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena. 2006b. ‘Information structure and word order change: The passive as an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English.’ In: Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.). The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 360–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seoane, Elena and Loureiro-Porto, Lucia. 2005. ‘On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English.’ ESP Across Cultures 2, 106–118.Google Scholar

Seoane, Elena and Williams, Christopher. 2006. ‘Changing the rules: A comparison of recent trends in English in academic scientific discourse and prescriptive legal discourse.’ In: Dossena, Marina and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). Diachronic Perspectives on Domain-Specific English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 255–276.Google Scholar

Seoane-Posse, Elena. 2002. ‘On the evolution of scientific American and British English, with special reference to recent and ongoing changes in the use of the passive voice.’ Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, University of Glasgow, 21–26 August, 2002.

Serpollet, Noëlle. 2001. ‘The mandative subjunctive in British English seems to be alive and kicking…Is it due to American influence?’ In: Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew and Khoja, Shereen (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference. Lancaster University: UCREL Technical Papers 13, 531–542.Google Scholar

Serpollet, Noëlle. 2003. Should and the Subjunctive: A Corpus-Based Approach to Mandative Constructions in English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. ‘Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis.’ Language 61(4), 821–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sigley, Robert. 1997. ‘Text categories and where you can stick them: A crude formality index.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(2), 199–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, Nicholas. 2002. ‘Ever moving on. Changes in the progressive in recent British English.’ In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 317–330.Google Scholar

Smith, Nicholas. 2003a. ‘Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English.’ In: Facchinetti et al., pp. 241–266.CrossRef

Smith, Nicholas. 2003b. ‘A quirky progressive? A corpus-based exploration of the will + be + -ing construction in recent and present-day English.’ In: Archer, Dawn, Rayson, Paul and Wilson, Andrew (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 conference. Lancaster University: UCREL Technical Papers 16, pp. 714–723.Google Scholar

Smith, Nicholas. 2005. A Corpus-Based Investigation of Recent Change in the Use of the Progressive in British English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Smith, Nicholas and Rayson, Paul. 2007. ‘Recent change and variation in the British English use of the progressive passive.’ ICAME Journal 31, 129–159.Google Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in 19th-Century English: A Process of Integration. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Stein, Gabriele. 1991. ‘The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern English.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics 29, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stein, Gabriele and Quirk, Randolph. 1991. ‘On having a look in a corpus.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, London: Longman, pp. 197–203.Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara. 1982. ‘Some aspects of the history of the be+ing construction.’ In: Anderson, John (ed.). Language Form and Linguistic Variation. Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 427–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Strunk, William and White, E. B.. 3 1979 [1959]. The Elements of Style. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 2001. ‘Texts, corpora and problems of interpretation: A response to Widdowson.’ Applied Linguistics 22(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sussex, Roland. 1982. ‘A note on the get-passive construction.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 2, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Svartvik, Jan and Quirk, Randolph (eds.). 1980. A Corpus of English Conversation. (Lund Studies in English, Volume 56). Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar

Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. ‘Be going to vs. will/ shall: Does syntax matter?’ Journal of English Linguistics 31, 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi. 2000. ‘Conventions of professional writing: The medical case report in a historical perspective.’ Journal of English Linguistics 28, 60–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taeymans, Martine. 2004. ‘An investigation into the marginal modals dare and need in British present-day English.’ In: Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.). Up and Down the Cline. The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali. 2004. ‘Have to, gotta, must? Grammaticalisation, variation and specialization in English deontic modality.’ In: Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian (eds.), pp. 33–55.

Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in Speech and Writing. A Study in Variation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2002. An Introduction to American English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2009. ‘How different are American and British English grammar? And how are they different?’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. ‘Tag Questions in British and American English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 34(4), 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

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

Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. ‘Subjectification in grammaticalisation.’ In: Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean. 4 2002 [1982]. International English. A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu and Wischer, Ilse. 2002. ‘Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English.’ English Language and Linguistics 6(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Turner, John F. 1980. ‘The marked subjunctive in contemporary English.’ Studia Neophilologica 52, 271–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Urdang, Laurence. 1991. ‘“If I were a king…” I'd be in a subjunctive mood.’ Verbatim 17, 12–14.Google Scholar

Ure, J. M. 1971. ‘Lexical density and register differentiation.’ In: Perren, G. E. and Trim, J. L. M. (eds.). Applications of Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 443–452.Google Scholar

Váradi, Tamás. 2001. ‘The linguistic relevance of corpus linguistics.’ In: Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew and Khoja, Shereen (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference. Lancaster University: UCREL Technical Papers 13, pp. 587–593.Google Scholar

Pérez, Varela, Ramón, José. 2007. ‘Negation of main verb have: Evidence of a change in progress in spoken and written British English.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108, 223–246.Google Scholar

Visser, Fredericus Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

Vosberg, Uwe. 2003a. ‘Cognitive complexity and the establishment of -ing constructions with retrospective verbs in Modern English.’ In: Dossena, Marina and Jones, Charles (eds.). Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 197–220.Google Scholar

Vosberg, Uwe. 2003b. ‘The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of -ing complements in Modern English.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 305–327.Google Scholar

Vosberg, Uwe. 2006a. Die Große Komplementverschiebung. Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Vosberg, Uwe. 2006b. ‘The Great Complement Shift. Extra-semantic factors determining the evolution of sentential complement variants in Modern English.’ In: English and American Studies in German 2005. (Summaries of Theses and Monographs. A Supplement to Anglia.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

Warner, Anthony. 1995. ‘Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework.’ Language 71, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiner, E. Judith and Labov, William. 1983. ‘Constraints on the agentless passive.’ Journal of Linguistics 19(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Westin, Ingrid. 2002. Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Westin, Ingrid and Geisler, Christer. 2002. ‘A multi-dimensional study of diachronic variation in British newspaper editorials.’ ICAME Journal 26, 115–134.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. ‘Why can you have a drink when you can't *have an eat?’ Language 58, 753–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and Progressive Aspect in English. Fasano di Puglia: Schena Editore.Google Scholar

Wright, Susan. 1994. ‘The mystery of the modal progressive.’ In: Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 467–485.Google Scholar

Wright, Susan. 1995. ‘Subjectivity and experiential syntax.’ In: Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 467–485.Google Scholar

Yoshimura, Kimihiro and Taylor, John R.. 2004. ‘What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8(2), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ziegeler, Deborah. 1999. ‘Agentivity and the history of the English progressive.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 97, 51–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar