Book contents
- A Brief History of English Syntax
- A Brief History of English Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Data and Data Handling
- 3 Theoretical Models and Morpho-Syntactic Change
- 4 The Role of Contact in Syntactic Change in English
- 5 The Noun Phrase
- 6 The Verb Phrase
- 7 Clausal Constituents
- 8 Subordinate Clauses
- 9 Word Order
- References
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 May 2017
Book contents
- A Brief History of English Syntax
- A Brief History of English Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Data and Data Handling
- 3 Theoretical Models and Morpho-Syntactic Change
- 4 The Role of Contact in Syntactic Change in English
- 5 The Noun Phrase
- 6 The Verb Phrase
- 7 Clausal Constituents
- 8 Subordinate Clauses
- 9 Word Order
- References
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- A Brief History of English Syntax , pp. 212 - 230Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aarts, B. and McMahon, A. (eds.) 2006. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, S. 2000. ‘A lovely little example: Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string’, in Fischer et al. (eds.), 39–66.Google Scholar
Algeo, J. 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C.L. 1992. ‘Old English and the syntactician: Some remarks and a syntactician’s guide to editions of the works of Ælfric’, in Colman, F. (ed.), Evidence for Old English: Material and Theoretical Bases for Reconstruction. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1–19.Google Scholar
Allen, C. L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C.L. 1997. ‘Middle English case loss and the “creolization” hypothesis’. English Language and Linguistics 1: 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C.L. 2001. ‘The development of a new passive in English’, in Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Time over Matter: Diachronic Perspectives on Morphosyntax. Stanford: CSLI, 43–72.Google Scholar
Allen, C.L. 2002. ‘Case and Middle English genitive noun phrases’, in Lightfoot, D.W. (ed.), Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C.L. 2006. ‘Case syncretism and word order change’, in Van Kemenade and Los (eds.), 201–23.Google Scholar
Allen, C.L. 2008. Genitives in Early English. Typology and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C.L. 2012. ‘Why a determiner? The possessive+determiner+adjective construction in Old English’, in Meurman-Solin et al. (eds.), 245–70.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1982. The Genitive v. the Of-Construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in Seventeenth-Century English. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2005. ‘Negative concord in British English dialects’, in Iyeiri, Y. (ed.), Aspects of English Negation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 113–37.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. 2003. ‘Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition’, in Joseph and Janda (eds.), 425–40.Google Scholar
Arnaud, R. 1983. ‘On the progress of the progressive in the private correspondence of famous British people 1800–1880’, in Jacobson, S. (ed.), Papers from the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 83–91.Google Scholar
Arnaud, R. 1998. ‘The development of the progressive in 19th century English: A quantitative survey’. Language Variation and Change 10: 123–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, D. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675–1975. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bache, C. 2000. Essentials of Mastering English: A Concise Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldi, P. 1990. ‘Indo-European languages’, in Comrie, B. (ed.), The Major Languages of Western Europe. London: Routledge, 21–57.Google Scholar
Ball, C. 1991. The Historical Development of the It-Cleft. PhD dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E.H. et al. (eds.) 2005. The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baron, N.S. 2008. Always on: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. and Gildea, S. (eds.) 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, J.C., Corrigan, K.P. and Moisl, H.L. (eds.) 2007. Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, vol. 2: Diachronic Databases. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bech, K. 2012. ‘Word order, information structure, and discourse relations: A study of Old and Middle English verb-final clauses’, in Meurman-Solin et al. (eds.), 66–86.Google Scholar
Bennett, P., Durrell, M., Scheible, S. and Whitt, R.J. (eds.) 2013. New Methods in Historical Corpora. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bergs, A. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters 1421–1503. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R., Denison, D., Hogg, R.M. and McCully, C.B. (eds.) 2000. Generative Theory and Corpus Linguistics: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Clark, V. 2002. ‘Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb?’, in Fanego, T., López-Couso, M.J., and J. Pérez-Guerra, (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1989. ‘Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres’. Language 65: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2011. ‘Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use’. English Language and Linguistics 15: 223–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blake, N. (ed.) 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 2: 1066–1676. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1967. ‘Apparent constituents in surface structure’. Word 23: 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, T. 2010. English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breban, T. 2012. ‘Functional shifts and the development of English determiners’, in Meurman-Solin et al. (eds.), 271–300.Google Scholar
Brems, L. and Davidse, K. 2010. ‘The grammaticalization of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change’. English Studies 91: 180–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J.W. and Ford, M. 2010. ‘Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English’. Language 86: 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-Verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.J. and Akimoto, M. (eds.) 1999. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.J. and Traugott, E.C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L. and Torres Cacoullos, R. 2009. ‘The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change’, in Corrigan, R.L., Moravcsik, E.A., Ouali, H. and Wheatley, K. (eds.), Formulaic Language, vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2005. Particle Patterns in English. A Comprehensive Coverage. PhD dissertation: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.) 2002. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M.H. and Kirby, S. (eds.) 2003. Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claridge, C. 2000. Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. and Walker, T. 2001. ‘Causal clauses in written and speech-related genres in Early Modern English’. ICAME Journal 25: 31–63.Google Scholar
Cloutier, R. 2005. Review of Carola Trips 2002. From OV to VO in Early Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 9: 181–91.Google Scholar
Coates, R. 2002. ‘The significances of Celtic place-names in England’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 47–85.Google Scholar
Colman, F. 1988. ‘Heavy arguments in Old English’, in Anderson, J. and Macleod, N., (eds.), Edinburgh Studies in the English Language. Edinburgh: John Donald, 33–89.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2012. Verbs. Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. 1980. ‘Neglected grammatical factors in conversational English’, in Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (eds.), Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk, London: Longman, 153–66.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2004. Language, Mind and Brain: Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2010. ‘The grammar of future time reference in European languages’, in Dahl, Ö. (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 309–28.Google Scholar
Davidse, K. 1996. ‘Functional dimensions of the dative in English’, in van Belle, W. and Langendonck, W. (eds.), The Dative, vol. 1: Descriptive Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 289–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K., Breban, T. and Van linden, A. 2008. ‘Deictification: The development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP’. English Language and Linguistics 12: 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. 1981. ‘On the role of the progressive aspect in nonfinite perception verb complements’. Glossa 15: 83–113.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, L. 2015. ‘The Old English to-dative construction’. English Language and Linguistics 19: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, F. 2010. ‘Typology of tense, aspect, and modality systems’, in Song, J. Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 443–64.Google Scholar
De Haas, N.K. 2011. Morphosyntactic Variation in Northern English. The Northern Subject Rule, Its Origins and Early History. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1985a. ‘The origins of periphrastic “do”: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered’, in Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W.F. and van der Leek, F. (eds.), Papers from the Fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 45–60.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1985b. ‘The origins of completive up in English’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86: 37–61.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1998. ‘Syntax’, in Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4: 1176–1997, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 92–329.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 2006. ‘Category change and gradience in the Determiner system’, in Van Kemenade and Los (eds.), 279–304.Google Scholar
Denison, D., Bermúdez-Otero, R., McCully, C. and Moore, E. (eds.), 2012. Analysing Older English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I. and Reed, S. 2006. ‘Mood and modality in English’, in Aarts and McMahon (eds.), 269–90.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2008. Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation: Gerunds, Participles and for…to-Infinitives. PhD dissertation: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2010. ‘Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and phrasal verb particle out’, in Traugott and Trousdale (eds.), 75–104.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2013a. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2013b. ‘Does innovation need reanalysis?’, in Coussé, E. and von Mengden, F. (eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 23–48.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2014. ‘Constrained confusion: The gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English’, in Hundt, M. (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 224–38.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. and Vancaeyzele, E. 2014. ‘Like a rolling stone: The changing use of English premodifying present participles’. English Language and Linguistics 19: 131–56.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., Flach, S., Tyrkkö, J. and Diller, H.-J. 2015. The Corpus of Late Modern English (CLMET), version 3.1: Improved tokenization and linguistic annotation. KU Leuven, FU Berlin, U Tampere, RU Bochum. Available from https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_1.htm.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization’, in Narrog and Heine (eds.), 438–61.Google Scholar
Disterheft, D. 1981. ‘Remarks on the history of the Indo-European infinitive’. Folia Linguistica Historica 2: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. 1982. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreschler, G. 2015. Passives and the Loss of Verb Second. A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Drinka, B. 2013. ‘Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe’. Studies in Language 37: 599–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 1996. ‘Word order typology’, in Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. and Vennemann, T. (eds.) Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1050–65.Google Scholar
Elenbaas, M. 2007. The Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb-Particle Combination. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1953. The Auxiliary Do. The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.E. and Faarlund, J.T. 2014. English: The Language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Engel, D.M. and Ritz, M.-E. 2000. ‘The use of the present perfect in Australian English’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 20: 119–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N.E. 1986. ‘More about the textual function of Old English adverbial þa’, in Kastovsky, D. and Szwedek, A., (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: In Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday, vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 301–09.Google Scholar
Evans, N. 2007. ‘Insubordination and its uses’, in Nikolaeva, I. (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, J.T. 1990. Syntactic Change: Towards a Theory of Historical Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, T. 2004. ‘On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal gerunds’. Diachronica 21: 5–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, M. 1999. The Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian Style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 2000. ‘Inversion in embedded questions in some regional varieties of English’, in Bermúdez-Otero et al. (eds.), 439–53.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 2009. ‘The rise of it-clefting in English: Areal-typological and contact-linguistic considerations’. English Language and Linguistics 13: 267–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filppula, M., Klemola, J. and Pitkänen, H. (eds.) 2002. The Celtic Roots of English. Joensuu: Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar
Finkenstaedt, Th., Leisi, E. and Wolff, D. 1970. A Chronological English Dictionary. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1988. ‘The rise of the for NP to V construction: An explanation’, in Nixon, G. and Honey, J. (eds.), An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, 67–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1991. ‘The rise of the passive infinitive in English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992a. ‘Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English’, in Gerritsen and Stein (eds.), 17–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1994a. ‘The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order’. Neophilologus 78: 137–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 1994b. ‘The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and infinitive construction in Dutch and English compared’, in Swan, T., Mørck, E. and Jansen-Westvik, O. (eds.), Language Change and Language Structure: Old Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 91–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 1995. ‘The distinction between to and bare infinitival complements in late Middle English’. Diachronica 12: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 1997. ‘The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English compared with German and Dutch’, in Hickey and Puppel (eds.), vol. 1, 265–80.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1998. ‘On negative raising in the history of English’, in Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon-van, Tottie, G. and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 55–100.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2000. ‘The position of the adjective in Old English’, in Bermúdez-Otero et al. (eds.), 153–81.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2001. ‘The position of the adjective in Old English from an iconic perspective’, in Fischer, O. and Nänny, M. (eds.), The Motivated Sign. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 249–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2004. ‘Developments in the category adjective from Old to Middle English’. Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature 19: 1–36.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2006. ‘On the position of adjectives in Middle English’. English Language and Linguistics 10: 253–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2012. ‘The status of the postposed “and-adjective” construction in Old English: Attributive or predicative?’, in Denison et al. (eds.), 251–84.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2013. ‘The role of contact in English syntactic change in the Old and Middle English periods’, in Schreier and Hundt (eds.), 18–40.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2015. ‘The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of have to once again’, in Toupin, F. and Lowrey, B. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 120–50.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A. and Stein, D. (eds.) 2000. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., Van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and Van der Wurff, W. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. and Van der Leek, F. 1987. ‘A “case” for the Old English impersonal’, in Koopman, W. F., van der Leek, F., Fischer, O. and Eaton, R., (eds.), Explanation and Linguistic Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 79–120.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J. and Krygier, M. (eds.) 1998. Advances in English Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L. 2016. ‘From nominal to verbal gerunds: A referential typology’. Functions of Language 23: 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonteyn, L., De Smet, H. and Heyvaert, L. 2015. ‘What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse functions of the English gerund’. Journal of English Linguistics 43:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, R.D. 2014. ‘Beowulf and language history’, in Neidorf, L. (ed.), The Dating of Beowulf: A Reassessment. Cambridge: Brewer, 19–36.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M. and Stein, D. 1992. ‘Introduction: On “internal” and “external” in syntactic change’, in Gerritsen and Stein (eds.), 1–16.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M. and Stein, D. (eds.) 1992. External and Internal Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, L. 2014. The Directionality of (Inter)subjectification in the English Noun Phrase: Pathways of Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1980. ‘The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements’. Studies in Language 4: 333–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. 1999a. English in Nineteenth-Century England: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. 1999b. ‘Regional and social variation’, in Lass, R., (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 459–538.Google Scholar
González-Díaz, V. 2008. English Adjective Comparison: A Historical Perspective Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Díaz, V. 2009. ‘Little old problems: Adjectives and subjectivity in the English NP’. Transactions of the Philological Society 107: 376–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Díaz, V. 2010. ‘Iconicity and subjectivisation in the English NP: The case of little’, in Conradie, J., Johl, R., Beukes, M., Fischer, O. and Ljungberg, C. (eds.), Signergy. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 319–45.Google Scholar
Gotti, M., Dossena, M. and Dury, R. (eds.) 2008. English Historical Linguistics 2006, vol. 1: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, C. and Warren, M. 2010. ‘What can a corpus tell us about multi-word units?’, in O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, 212–26.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1966. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Grammar (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–113.Google Scholar
Gronemeyer, C. 1999. ‘On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get’. English Language and Linguistics 3: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, D.M. 1997. ‘“And they proceeded to plough and to support themselves”: The Scandinavian settlement of England’, Anglo-Norman Studies 19: 69–96.Google Scholar
Hadley, D.M. and Richards, J.D. (eds.) 2000. Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England in the Ninth & Tenth Centuries. Turnhout: Brepols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2010. ‘Investigating Anglo-Norman influence on late Middle English syntax’, in Ingham, R. (ed.), The Anglo-Norman Language and its Contexts. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press, 143–63.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. and Ingham, R. 2007. ‘The position of negation and adverbs in Early Middle English’. Lingua 117: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1997. ‘Register variation, truncation, and subject omission in English and in French’. English Language and Linguistics 1: 233–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1989. ‘From purposive to infinitive - A universal path of grammaticization’. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 287–310.Google Scholar
Haumann, D. 2003. ‘The postnominal and adjective construction in Old English’. English Language and Linguistics 7: 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haumann, D. 2010. ‘Adnominal adjectives in Old English’. English Language and Linguistics 14: 53–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, R. (ed.) 2010. The Handbook of Language Contact. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, R. and Puppel, S. (eds.) 1997. Language History and Linguistic Modelling, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higham, N. 2002. ‘The Anglo-Saxon/British interface: History and ideology’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 29–46.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, R. 1983. The Decline of the Prefixes and the Beginnings of the English Phrasal Verb: The Evidence from some Old and Early Middle English Texts. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’. English Language and Linguistics 11: 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, D. 1995. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental Mechanisms of Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hogg, R.M. (ed.) 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R.M. 2004. ‘The spread of negative contraction in early English’, in Curzan, A. and Emmons, K. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding Conversations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 459–82.Google Scholar
Hollmann, W. and Siewierska, A. 2011. ‘The status of frequency, schemas, and identity in Cognitive Sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction’. Cognitive Linguistics. 22: 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, K.J. and Thagard, P. 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J. and Thompson, S.A. 1980. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’. Language 56: 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J. and Thompson, S.A. 1984. ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar’. Language 60: 703–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J. and Traugott, E.C. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, M. 2007. ‘The Old Bailey proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English’. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1 [www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/01/index.html].Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., and Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübler, A. 2007. The Nonverbal Shift in Early Modern English Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J.R. 2003. ‘The language mosaic and its evolution’, in Christiansen and Kirby (eds.), 38–57.Google Scholar
Iglesias-Rábade, L. 2001. ‘Composite predicates in Middle English with the verbs nimen and taken’. Studia Neophilologica 73:143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1994. ‘The dialects of England since 1776’, in Burchfield, R. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 5: English Language in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–274.Google Scholar
Ingham, R. 2000. ‘Negation and OV order in Late Middle English’. Journal of Linguistics 36: 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. 2002. ‘Negated subjects and objects in 15th-century nonliterary English’. Language Variation and Change 14: 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, G.B. 1978. ‘Negation in later Middle English prose’. Archivum Linguisticum 9 n.s.: 58–72.Google Scholar
Janda, R.D. 1980. ‘On the decline of declensional systems: The overall loss of Old English nominal case inflections and the Middle English reanalysis of -ES as HIS’, in Traugott, E.C., Labrum, R., Shepherd, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 243–52.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Heidelberg/Copenhagen: Carl Winters/Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.D. and Janda, R.D. 2003. (eds.) The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A. (eds.) 2003. Language Contact in the History of English. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Keizer, E. 2007. The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. (translated from the German by Nerlich, B.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. 2002. ‘Koineization and accommodation’, in Chambers et al. (eds.), 669–702.Google Scholar
Kerstens, J., Ruys, E. and Zwarts, J. 1996–2001. Lexicon of Linguistics online, www2.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/.Google Scholar
Killie, K. 2008. ‘From locative to durative to focalized? The English progressive and “PROG imperfective drift”’, in Gotti et al. (eds.), 69–88.Google Scholar
Killie, K., and Swan, T. 2009. ‘The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial ‑ing-clauses (converb clauses) in English’. English Language and Linguistics 13: 337–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. and Christiansen, M.H. 2003. ‘From language learning to language evolution’, in Christiansen and Kirby (eds.), 272–94.Google Scholar
Kirch, M.S. 1959. ‘Scandinavian influence on English syntax’. Publications of the Modern Language Society 74: 503–10.Google Scholar
Klemola, J. 2002. ‘Periphrastic DO: Dialectal distribution and origins’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 199–210.Google Scholar
Klemola, J. 2013. ‘English as a contact language in the British Isles’, in Schreier and Hundt (eds.), 75–87.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Th. 2003. ‘The influence of “Latinate” constructions in early Modern English: Orality and literacy as complementary forces’, in Kastovsky and Mettinger (eds.), 171–94.Google Scholar
Komen, E. 2009. ‘CESAC: Coreference Editor for Syntactically Annotated Corpora’. Paper presented at 7th Symposium on the History of English Syntax, 6–7 June 2009, Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Koopman, W. 1985. ‘The syntax of verb and particle combinations in Old English’, in Bennis, H. and Beukema, F. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. Dordrecht: Foris, 91–9.Google Scholar
Koopman, W. 1998. ‘Inversion after single and multiple topics in Old English’, in Fisiak and Krygier (eds.), 135–50.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. 1997. Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, B. and Wagner, S. 2010. ‘Changes and continuities in dialect grammar’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 269–92.Google Scholar
Kranich, S. 2006. ‘The origin of English gerundial constructions: A case of French influence?’, in Johnston, A.J., von Mengden, F. and Thim, S. (eds.), Language and Text: Current Perspectives on English and German Historical Linguistics and Philology. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 179–95.Google Scholar
Kranich, S. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English. A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krickau, C. 1877. Der Accusativ mit dem Infinitiv in der englischen Sprache, besonders im Zeitalter der Elisabeth. PhD dissertation: University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
Kroch, A.S. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A.S. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in Van Kemenade and Vincent (eds.), 297–325.Google Scholar
Kroch, A.S. and Taylor, A. 2000. ‘Verb-object order in Early Middle English’, in Pintzuk et al. (eds.), 132–63.Google Scholar
Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M. 1996. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts (3rd ed.). Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Danchev, A. 2001. ‘The Middle English for to+infinitive construction’, in Kastovsky and Mettinger (eds.), 35–55.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Romaine, S. 2006. ‘Adjective comparison in nineteenth-century English’, in Kytö, M., Rydén, M. and Smitterberg, E. (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, M. 2004. ‘Indefinite pronominal anaphora in English correspondence between 1500 and 1800’, in Kay, C., Horobin, S., and Smith, J. (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics, vol. 1: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, M. 2008. ‘Sociolinguistic patterns in grammaticalisation: he, they, and those in human indefinite reference’. Language Variation and Change 20: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, M. 2009. ‘Singular you was/were variation and English normative grammars in the eighteenth century’, in Nurmi et al. (eds.), 199–217.Google Scholar
Lange, C. and Schaefer, U. 2008. ‘Tis he, ‘tis she, ‘tis me – I don’t know who …. Cleft and identificational constructions in 16th and 18th century plays’, in Gotti et al. (eds.), 203–22.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (ed.) 1999. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 2004. ‘Ut custodiant litteras: Editions, corpora and witnesshood’, in Dossena, M. and Lass, R. (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Lang, 21–48.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change’. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, H.M., auf dem Keller, C. and Ruef, B. 2006. ‘Zen Corpus 1.0’, in Facchinetti, R. and Rissanen, M. (eds.) Corpus-Based Studies of Diachronic English. Bern: Lang, 135–55.Google Scholar
Leung, A.H. and Van der Wurff, W. 2011. ‘Anaphoric reference in Early Modern English: The case of said and same’. Paper read at the 2nd International Workshop on the Noun Phrase in English, Newcastle University, September 2011.Google Scholar
Light, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2015. ‘The expression of impersonals in Middle English’. English Language and Linguistics 19: 227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W. 1981. ‘The history of noun phrase movement’, in Baker, C.L. and McCarthy, J. (eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 86–119.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
López-Couso, M.J. and Méndez-Naya, B. 2015. ‘Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: From adverbial subordination to complementation in English’.Language Sciences 47: 188–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, B. 2012. ‘The loss of Verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems’, in Meurman-Solin et al. (eds.), 21–46.Google Scholar
Los, B. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, B. and Dreschler, G. 2012. ‘The loss of local anchoring: From adverbial local anchors to permissive subjects’, in Nevalainen and Traugott (eds.), 859–72.Google Scholar
Los, B. and Komen, E. 2012. ‘Clefts as resolution strategies after the loss of a multifunctional first position’, in Nevalainen and Traugott (eds.), 884–98.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.) 2008–2009. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 2 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, A. 1998. ‘The interplay of external and internal factors in morphological restructuring: The case of you’, in Fisiak and Krygier (eds.), 189–210.Google Scholar
Lutz, A. 2009. ‘Celtic Influence on Old English and West Germanic’. English Language and Linguistics 13: 227–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. and Leech, G. 2006. ‘Current changes in English syntax’, in Aarts and McMahon, (eds.), 318–42.Google Scholar
Manabe, K. 1989. The Syntactic and Stylistic Development of the Infinitive in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 2002. ‘The rise of the to-dative in Middle English’, in Lightfoot (ed.), 107–23.Google Scholar
McIntosh, A., Samuels, M.L. and Benskin, M. 1985. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. 2000. Change, Chance and Optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A. 2007. ‘Relatives as sentence-level connectives’, in Lenker, U. and Meurman-Solin, A. (eds.), Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 255–87.Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A., López-Couso, M.-J., and Los, B. (eds.) 2012. Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D.G. 2001. ‘Subject and object in Old English and Latin copular deontics’, in Faarlund, J.T. (ed.), Grammatical Relations in Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 223–39.Google Scholar
Miller, D.G. 2012. External Influences on English: From Its Beginnings to the Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. and Weinert, R. 1998. Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitkovska, L. and Bužarovska, E. 2012. ‘An alternative analysis of the English get-past-participle constructions: Is get all that passive?’. Journal of English Linguistics 40: 196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moerenhout, M. and Van der Wurff, W. 2000. ‘Remnants of the old order: OV in the Paston Letters’. English Studies 81: 513–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moerenhout, M. and Van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Object-Verb order in early sixteenth-century English prose: An exploratory study’. English Language and Linguistics 9: 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, L. 1999. ‘The negative relative marker but: A case of syntactic borrowing’, in Tops et al. (eds.), 65–78.Google Scholar
Mondorf, B. 2009. More Support for More-Support: The Role of Processing Constraints on the Choice between Synthetic and Analytic Comparative Forms. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moralejo-Gárate, T. 2001. ‘Composite predicates and idiomatisation in Middle English: A corpus-based approach’. Studia Anglistica Posnaniensia 36: 171–87.Google Scholar
Nagle, S.J. 1989. Inferential Change and Syntactic Modality in English. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Nagucka, R. 2003. ‘Latin prepositional phrases and their Old English equivalents’, in Kastovsky and Mettinger (eds.), 251–65.Google Scholar
Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nehls, D. 1974. Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 1997. ‘Recyling inversion: The case of initial adverbs and negators in early Modern English’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 31: 203–14.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 2011. ‘Reconstructing syntactic continuity and change in Early Modern English regional dialects: The case of who’, in Denison et al. (eds.), 159–84.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (eds.) 1996. Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on The Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2003. Historical Socio-Linguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E.C. (eds.), 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. 2003. ‘What can the field of linguistics tell us about the origin of language?’, in Christiansen and Kirby (eds.), 58–76.Google Scholar
Nickel, G. 1967. ‘An example of a syntactic blend in Old English’. Indogermanische Forschungen 72: 261–74.Google Scholar
Nicolle, S. 2011. ‘Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization’, in Narrog and Heine (eds.), 401–12.Google Scholar
Noël, D. 2007. ‘Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory’. Functions of Language 14: 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, A., Nevala, M. and Palander-Collin, M. (eds.) 2009. The Language of Daily Life in England 1400–1800. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, M. 2001. ‘Perceptual factors and word order change in English’. Folia Linguistica Historica 22: 233–53.Google Scholar
Ohlander, U. 1943. ‘Omission of the object in English’. Studia Neophilologica 16: 105–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsu, N. 2002. ‘On the presence or absence of the conjunction þæt in Old English, with special reference to dependent sentences containing a gif-clause’. English Language and Linguistics 6: 225–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A.L. 2010. ‘Grammaticalization and the it-cleft construction’, in Traugott and Trousdale (eds.), 221–43.Google Scholar
Petré, P. 2014. Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. 2015. ‘Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies. Or why [BE Ving] became the “progressive”’. English Language and Linguistics 19: 1–24.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1991. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order. PhD dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2002. ‘Morphological case and word order in Old English’. Language Sciences 24: 381–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Kroch, A.S. 1989. ‘The rightward movement of complements and adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf’. Language Variation and Change 1: 115–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Taylor, A. 2006. ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in Van Kemenade and Los (eds.), 249–78.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. 2000. ‘Syntactic change: Theory and method’, in Pintzuk et al. (eds.), 1–22.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.) 2000. Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1983. ‘Coming into being among the Anglo-Saxons’, in Davenport, M., Hansen, E. and Nielsen, H.F. (eds.), Current Topics in English Historical Linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press, 239–78.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 2007. ‘Extent and limits of linguistic diversity as the remit of typology – but through constraints on WHAT is diversity limited?’. Linguistic Typology 11: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polo, C. 2002. ‘Double objects and morphological triggers for syntactic case’, in Lightfoot, (ed.), 124–42.Google Scholar
Poppe, E. 2009. ‘Standard Average European and the Celticity of English intensifiers and reflexives: Some considerations and implications’. English Language and Linguistics 13: 251–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. 1986. ‘Iconicity in syntax: The natural order of attributes’, in Bouissac, P., Herzfeld, M. and Posner, R. (eds.), Iconicity: Festschrift for Thomas A. Sebeok. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 305–37.Google Scholar
Poussa, P. 1982. ‘The evolution of early standard English: The creolization hypothesis’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 14: 69–85.Google Scholar
Pratt, L. and Denison, D. 2000. ‘The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle’. Language Sciences 22: 401–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. 1982. ‘Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to’. Glossa 16: 181–215.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 1994. ‘The position of adjectival modifiers in Late Middle English noun phrases’, in Fries, U., Tottie, G. and Schneider, P. (eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 159–68.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2009. ‘Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen’, in Nurmi et al. (eds.), 165–96.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2000. ‘WHICH and THE WHICH in Late Middle English: Free variants?’, in Taavitsainen, I., Nevalainen, T., Pahta, P., and Rissanen, M. (eds.) Placing Middle English in Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 209–26.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. and Nevalainen, T. 2007. ‘Historical sociolinguistics: The corpus of Early English Correspondence’, in Beal et al. (eds.), 148–71.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. 1967. The Uses of One in Old and Early Middle English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M., Ihalainen, O., Nevalainen, T. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.) 1992. History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M. and Heikkonen, K. (eds.) 1997. English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M. and Palander-Collin, M. (eds.) 1993. Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1997. ‘Directionality and word order change in the history of English’, in Van Kemenade and Vincent (eds.), 397–426.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 2009. ‘Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’, in van Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon and van der Wurff, W. (eds.), Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Lang, 301–30.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. and Schlüter, J. (eds.) 2009. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronan, P. 2002. ‘Subordinating ocus “and” in Old Irish’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 213–36.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2003. ‘Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English’, in Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 379–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A. 2007. ‘Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English’. English Language and Linguistics 11: 143–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A., Stein, D. and Vezzosi, L. 2000. ‘On the history of the s-genitive’, in Bermúdez-Otero et al. (eds.), 183–210.Google Scholar
Rubba, J. 1994. ‘Grammaticization as semantic change: A case study of preposition development’, in Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sairio, A. 2009. Language and Letters of the Bluestocking Network: Sociolinguistic Issues in Eighteenth-Century Epistolary English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Samuels, M.L. 1969. ‘Some applications of Middle English dialectology’, in Lass, R. (ed.), Approaches to English Historical Linguistics. An Anthology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 404–18.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. 2002. ‘Linguistic outcomes of language contact’, in Chambers et al. (eds.), 638–68.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. 2005. ‘Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies’, in Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K.J. and Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1003–13.Google Scholar
Schendl, H. and Wright, L. (eds.) 2011. Code-Switching in Early English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, J. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2015. ‘A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model’. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreier, D. and Hundt, M. (eds.) 2013. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrijver, P. 2002. ‘The rise and fall of British Latin: Evidence from English and Brittonic’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 87–110.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. and Widdowson, H. 2007. ‘Idiomatic variation and change in English: The idiom principle and its realizations’, in Smit, U., Dollinger, S., Huettner, J., Kaltenboeck, G. and Lutzky, U. (eds.), Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation. Wien: Braumüller, 359–74.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. 2015. ‘The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English’, in Barðdal et al. (eds.), 107–38.Google Scholar
Stein, D. 1990. The Semantics of Syntactic Change: Aspects of the Evolution of ‘do’ in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, C. 2009. ‘On the syntactic differences between Old English dialects: Evidence from the Gospels’. English Language and Linguistics 13: 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajima, M. 1985. The Syntactic Development of the Gerund in Middle English. Tokyo: Nan’un-do.Google Scholar
Tajima, M. 1999. ‘The compound gerund in Early Modern English’, in Embleton, S., Joseph, J.E. and Niederehe, H.J. (eds.), The Emergence of the Modern Language Sciences: Studies on the Transition from Historical-Comparative to Structural Linguistics in Honour of E.F.K. Koerner. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265–76.Google Scholar
Tanaka, T. 2000. ‘On the development of transitive expletive constructions in the history of English’. Lingua 110: 473–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. 2005. ‘Prosodic evidence for incipient VO order in Old English’. English Language and Linguistics 9: 139–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. 2008. ‘Contact effects of translation: Distinguishing two kinds of influence in Old English’. Language Variation and Change 20: 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. and Pintzuk, S. 2012. ‘Rethinking the OV/VO alternation in Old English: The effect of complexity, grammatical weight, and information status’, in Nevalainen and Traugott (eds.), 1199–1213.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.G. 2003. ‘Contact as a source of language change’, in Joseph and Janda (eds.), 687–712.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A. 1988. ‘A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category “adjective”’, in Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 168–85.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A. 1995. ‘The iconicity of “dative shift” in English: Considerations from information flow in discourse’, in Landsberg, M.E. (ed.), Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: The Human Dimension. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 155–75.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A. and Mulac, A. 1991. ‘A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English’, in Traugott and Heine, (eds.), vol. 2, 313–29.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 1987. The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-Century English: A Sociohistorical Linguistic Approach. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timofeeva, O. 2010. Non-Finite Constructions in Old English, with Special Reference to Syntactic Borrowing from Latin. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. ‘On the different origins of symbols and grammar’, in Christiansen and Kirby (eds.), 94–110.Google Scholar
Tops, G.A., Devriendt, B. and Geukens, S. (eds.) 1999. Thinking English Grammar: To honour Xavier Dekeyser. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. 1989. ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English. An example of subjectification in semantic change’. Language 57: 33–65.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. 2008. ‘The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns’, in Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change’, in Narrog and Heine (eds.), 19–30.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. and Dasher, R.B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. and Heine, B. (eds.) 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins,Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. and König, E. 1991. ‘The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited’, in Traugott and Heine (eds.), vol. 1, 189–218.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. and Trousdale, G. (eds.) 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., and Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tristram, H.L.C. 2002. ‘Attrition of inflections in English and Welsh’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 111–49.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. 2012. ‘Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar: The case of the what with construction’, Studies in Language 36: 576–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. 2013. ‘Multiple inheritance and constructional change’, Studies in Language 37: 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. and Adger, D. (eds.) 2007. ‘Special Issue on Theoretical Accounts of Dialect Variation’, English Language and Linguistics 11.ii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bergen, L. 2013. ‘Early progressive passives’. Folia Linguistica Historica 34: 173–208.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, F. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Pol, N. 2016. The Development of the Absolute Construction in English. PhD dissertation: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, N. and Cuyckens, H. 2013. ‘Gradualness in change in English augmented absolutes’, in Ramat, A. Giacalone, Mauri, C. and Molinelli, P. (eds.), Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 341–66.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, N. and Petré, P. 2015. ‘Why is there a Present-day English absolute?’ Studies in Language 39: 198–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. 2009. De Nominale Constituent: Structuur en Geschiedenis. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. 2011. ‘Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP’. English Language and Linguistics 15: 387–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. and Van der Horst, J. 2013. ‘Homoplasy in diachronic grammar’. Language Sciences 36: 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. 1999. ‘Periphrastic do: Typological prolegomena’, in Tops et al. (eds.), 457–70.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. 2009. ‘The Jespersen cycles’, in van Gelderen, E. (ed.), Cyclical Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 35–71.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. and Genee, I. 2002. ‘English do: On the convergence of languages and linguists’. English Language and Linguistics 6: 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Horst, J. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Van der Wurff, W. 1990. Diffusion and Reanalysis in Syntax. PhD dissertation: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Van der Wurff, W. 1999. ‘Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: A word order parallel and its causes’. Lingua 109: 237–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, E. 2013. ‘Null subjects in Old English’. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, A. 1997. ‘V2 and embedded topicalization in Old and Middle English’, in Van Kemenade and Vincent (eds.), 326–52.Google Scholar
Van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. 2003. ‘Particles and prefixes in Dutch and English’, in Booij, G. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2003. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 79–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.) 2006. The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.) 1997. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, L. 2002. ‘Prenominal adjectives in English: structures and ordering’. Folia Linguistica 36: 219–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varga, E. 2005. ‘Lexical V-to-I raising in Late Modern English’. Generative Grammar in Geneva 4: 261–81.Google Scholar
Vartiainen, T. 2013. ‘Subjectivity, indefiniteness and semantic change’. English Language and Linguistics 17: 157–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, J. and Mulder, J. 2014. ‘The survival of the subjunctive in Australian English: Ossification, indexicality and stance’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 34: 486–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2009. ‘Celtic Influence in English? Yes and no’. English Language and Linguistics 13: 309–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viana, V., Zyngier, S. and Barnbrook, G. (eds.) 2011. Perspectives on Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F.Th. 1963–73. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2013. ‘Null subjects in Old English’, Language Variation and Change 25: 155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A.R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, A.R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerman, F. 1993. ‘The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: The change from OV to VO’. Linguistics 31: 903–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westin, I. and Geisler, C. 2002. ‘A multi-dimensional study of diachronic variation in British newspaper editorials’, ICAME Journal 26: 133–52.Google Scholar
White, D.L. 2002. ‘Explaining the innovations of Middle English: What, where, and why’, in Filppula et al. (eds.), 153–74.Google Scholar
Wischer, I. 2000. ‘Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: Methinks there is some confusion’, in Fischer et al. (eds.), 355–70.Google Scholar
Wischer, I. 2010. ‘On the use of beon and wesan in Old English’, in Lenker, U., Huber, J., and Mailhammer, R. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2008, vol. 1: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 217–35.Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change’. Diachronica 3: 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlin, J. 1908. The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar