Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T05:15:26.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - SYNTAX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
David Denison
Edited by
Suzanne Romaine
Suzanne Romaine
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Syntactic change

The topic of syntactic change in late Modern English is only just beginning to get its share of serious scholarly attention, and compared with the towers of published syntactic research which the Syntax chapters of volumes I–III in this series have been launched from, this chapter has had to rely rather more on its own bootstraps. All research surveys are by definition provisional, this one especially so.

By 1776 the English language had already undergone most of the syntactic changes which differentiate Present-Day English (henceforth PDE) from Old English (henceforth OE) (see CHEL I: 170–1). Older patterns of word order with the verb at the clause end or in second constituent position had long been replaced by an unmarked order framed by the sequence subject–verb–object or subject–verb–complement. A subject noun phrase (NP) was virtually obligatory in simple clauses other than imperatives. Great simplifications had taken place in morphology, so that the noun and adjective had already reached their present, vestigial inflectional systems, and the verb nearly so. The number and frequency of prepositions had expanded greatly, and prepositions now served to mark a variety of nominal functions. Prepositions, particles and other words frequently joined simple lexical verbs to form group-verbs like speakto, makeup, takenotice of. Such formations as the prepositional and indirect passives had become commonplace. The complexity of the English auxiliary system had grown to encompass a wide range of mood and aspect marking, and much of its present systematic structure was already in place, including the dummy auxiliary do. Some patterns involving finite and nonfinite subordinate clauses had been rare or impossible in OE; by 1776 most of the present repertoire was available.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of the English Language , pp. 92 - 329
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wurff, W. (1989[1991]). A remarkable gap in the history of English syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica 9.Google Scholar
Aarts, B. (1998). Binominal Noun Phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, S. (1994). From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: stylisation and (de-)subjectivisation as processes of language change. Transactions of the Philological Society 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, S. , Law, V. A. , Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds.) (1990). Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. (eds.) (1991). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. , Demers, R. A. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistics: an introduction to language and communication. Cambridge MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Algeo, J. (1992). British and American mandative constructions. In Blank (1992).Google Scholar
Allen, R. L. (1966). The Verb System of Present-Day American English. (Janua Linguarum, series practica, 24.) The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Allerton, D.J. (1995). Problems of Modern English grammar IV: findings. English Studies 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. (1993). Parameters of syntactic change: a notional view. In Jones (1993).Google Scholar
Arnaud, R. (1983). On the progress of the progressive in the private correspondence of famous British people (1800–1880). In Jacobson (1983).Google Scholar
Austin, F. O. (1980). A crescent-shaped jewel of an island: appositive nouns in phrases separated by of. English Studies 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, F. O. (1985). Relative which in late 18th-century usage: the Clift family correspondence. In Eaton, R. , Fischer, O. , Koopman, W. & Leek, F. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Amsterdam, 10–13 April 1985. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 41.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bache, C. (1978). The Order of Premodifying Adjectives in Present-Day English. Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1995). Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, C. N. (1994). Relative pronouns in it-clefts: the last seven centuries. Language Variation and Change 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, C. N. (1996). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, C. (1964). Linguistic Change in Present-Day English. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Barber, C. (1985). Linguistic Change in Present-Day English. In Backman, S. & Kjellmer, G. (eds.), Papers on Language and Literature: Presented to Alvar Ellegård and Erik Frykman. (Gothenburg Studies in English 60.) Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1990). Two points of English grammar. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 5.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1987). An initial typology of English text types. In Aarts, J. & Meijs, W. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics II: New Studies in the Analysis and Exploitation of Computer Corpora. (Costerus new series 57.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1992). The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. In Rissanen, , Ihalainen, , Nevalainen, & Taavitsainen, (eds.)).Google Scholar
Biber, D. , Finegan, E. , Atkinson, D. , Beck, A. , Burges, D. & Burges, J. (1994). The design and analysis of the ARCHER corpus: a progress report [A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers]. In Kytö, , Rissanen, & Wright, (1994).Google Scholar
Blank, C. (ed.) (1992). Language and Civilization: a Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch. 2 vols. Frankfurt-on-Main, Berne, New York and Paris: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Blyth, C. jr. , Recktenwald, S. & Wang, J. (1990). ‘I’m like, “Say what?!”’: a new quotative in American oral narrative. American Speech 65.Google Scholar
Bodelsen, C. A. (1974[1936/1937]). The expanded tenses in Modern English: an attempt at an explanation. In Schopf, A. (ed.), Der englische Aspekt. (Wege der Forschung 253.) Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Bodine, A. (1975). Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: singular ‘they’, sexindefinite ‘he’ and ‘he or she’. Language in Society 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and Form. (English Language Series 11.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1979). The jingle theory of double -ing . In Allerton, D. , Carney, E. & Holdcroft, D. (eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis; a Festschrift for William Haas. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1992). Shifts of attachment. In Blank, (1992).Google Scholar
Boyland, J. T. (1998). A corpus study of would + have + past-participle in English. In Hogg, & Bergen, (eds.).Google Scholar
Brainerd, B. (1989[1993]). The contractions of not a historical note. Journal of English Linguistics 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breivik, L. E. (1983). Existential ‘There’: a Synchronic and Diachronic Study, 1st edn. (Studia Anglistica Norvegica 2.) Bergen: Department of English, University of Bergen. 2nd edn. (1990). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1988). The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 49.) Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1994). The differentiation of statives and perfects in early Modern English: the development of the conclusive perfect. In Stein, & Ostade, Tieken-Boon (1994).Google Scholar
Brook, G. L. (1970). The Language of Dickens. (The Language Library.) London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, W. (1992). Transferred negation and modality. Journal of Pragmatics 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, M. (1981). Romantics, Rebels and Reactionaries: English Literature and its Background 1760–1830. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butters, R. R. (1983). Syntactic change in British English propredicates. Journal of English Linguistics 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, G. & Pesetsky, D. (1977). Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-ordination. Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13.Google Scholar
Chapman, C. (1998). A subject-verb agreement hierarchy: evidence from analogical change in modern English dialects. In Hogg, & Bergen, (1998).Google Scholar
Charleston, B. M. (1941). Studies on the Syntax of the English Verb. (Schweizer Anglistische Arbeiten [11].) Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (1982). Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christophersen, P. (1939). The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clark, J. W. (1975). The Language and Style of Anthony Trollope. (The Language Library.) London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Coates, R. (1989). A solution to the must of problem. York Papers in Linguistics 14.Google Scholar
Collins, P. (1988). The semantics of some modals in contemporary Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1912). A history of the English relative constructions. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 11.Google Scholar
Curry, K. (1984). The Contributions of Robert South ey to the ‘Morning Post’. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Davies, E. (1986). The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1975). Number and Case Relations in 19th century British English: a Comparative Study of Grammar and Usage. (Bibliotheca Linguistica, Series Theoretica.) Antwerp and Amsterdam: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1984). Relativizers in Early Modern English: a dynamic quantitative study. In Fisiak, (1984).Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1986). English contact clauses revisited: a diachronic approach. Folia Linguistica Historical.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (1984). On get it over with . Neophilologus 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (1985). Some observations on being teaching . Studia Neophilologica 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (1992). Counterfactual may have . In Gerritsen, M. & Stein, D. (eds.), Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. (Trends in Linguistics/Studies and Monographs 61.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993a). English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. (Longman Linguistics Library.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993b). Some recent changes in the English verb. In Gotti, (1993).Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1994). A corpus of late Modern English prose. In Kytö, , Rissanen, & Wright, (1994).Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1996). The case of the unmarked pronoun. In Britton, D. (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (8.ICEHL, Edinburgh, 19–23 September 1994). (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 135.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dennis, L. (1940). The progressive tense: frequency of its use in English. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillard, J. L. (1992). A History of American English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Downing, A. (1996). The semantics of get-passives. In Hasan, R. , Cloran, C. & Butt, D. (eds.) Functional Descriptions. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 121.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. [J] (1992a). The use of the verb dare in blends between the modal and main verb constructions. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 31.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. (1992b). The English Infinitive. (English Language Series 19.) London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. (1994). Need and dare: the black sheep of the modal family. Lingua 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J. (1989). The English present perfect: has it seen its best days? In Breivik, L. E. , Hille, A. & Johansson, S. (eds.) Essays on English Language in Honour of Bertil Sundby. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1986). Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In Brame, M. , Contreras, H. & Newmeyer, F. (eds.), A Festschrift for Sol Saporta. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. (1980). On the history of subject contact-clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1.Google Scholar
Fanego, T. (1996). The gerund in Early Modern English: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 17.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1990). Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26.Google Scholar
Finegan, E. & Biber, D. (1995). That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In Aarts, B. & Meyer, C. (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (1991). The rise of the passive infinitive in English. In Kastovsky, (1991). [Also in Fischer (1990) with paragraph numbering 1 higher.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II, 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (1994). The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. (ed.) (1984). Historical Syntax. (Trends in Linguistics/Studies and Monographs 23.) Paris and The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, B. (1970). The Changing English Language. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fridén, G. (1948). Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare: with Special Reference to the Late Sixteenth Century. (Essays and Studies on English Language and Literature 2.) Uppsala: Uppsala University English Institute.Google Scholar
Furness, N. A. (1992). Signs and sins of the times? Some recurrent issues in current English usage. In Blank, (1992).Google Scholar
Geerts, G. , W Haeseryn, J. Rooij & Toorn, M. C. (1984). Algemene nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Gotti, M. (ed.) (1983). English Diachronic Syntax. (Collana Blu, 20.) Milan: Guerini. [Proceedings of the Vth national congress of history of the English language.]Google Scholar
Goyvaerts, D. L. (1968). An introductory study on the ordering of a string of adjectives in Present-Day English. Philologica Pragensia 11.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1983). The ‘Be + Past Participle’ Construction in Spoken English: with Special Emphasis on the Passive. (North-Holland Linguistic Series 49.) Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Quirk, R. (1990). A Students Grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (eds.) (1980). Studies in English Linguistics: for Randolph Quirk. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1980). On being teaching. In Greenbaum, , Leech, & Svartvik, (1980).Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1981). It's I, it's me: further reflections. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 13.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1986). English ought (to) . In Kastovsky, & Szwedek, (1986).Google Scholar
Hench, A. L. (1937). A survival of it is = there is . English Studies 19.Google Scholar
Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. (Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax.) Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirtle, W. & Bégin, C. (1990). To be in the progressive: a new use. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. & Bergen, L. (eds.) (1998). Historical Linguistics 1995, vol. 2, Germanic. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J. & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (in prep.). The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. (1977). Past tense transportation in English. Journal of Linguistics 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1980). Criteria for auxiliaries and modals. In Greenbaum, , Leech, & Svartvik, (1980).Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1994). The contrast between interrogatives and questions. Journal of Linguistics 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1995). Does English really have case?Journal of Linguistics 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, E. (1984). ‘Ought’: present or past tense?English Studies 65.Google Scholar
Jacobson, S. (ed.) (1983). Papers from the Second Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation: Stockholm, May 15–16, 1982. (Stockholm Studies in English 57.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B. (1994). Nonrestrictive relative that-clauses revisited. Studia Neophilologica 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in Language: with Special Reference to English. London and New York: Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–49). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. [Also published by Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen; reprinted by George Allen & Unwin, London, 1961.]Google Scholar
Jones, C. (ed.) (1993). Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (1992). Social Stylistics: Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpf, F. (1933). Die erlebte Rede im Englischen. Anglia 57.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. & Szwedek, A. (eds.) (1986). Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: in Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday. 2 vols. (Trends in Linguistics/Studies and Monographs 32.) Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (ed.) (1991). Historical English Syntax. (Topics in English Linguistics 2.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, K. & Butters, R. R. (1987). American instances of propredicate do . Journal of English Linguistics 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilby, D. (1984). Descriptive Syntax and the English Verb. London, Sydney and Dover NH: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Kirk, J. M. (1985). Linguistic atlases and grammar: the investigation and description of regional variation in English syntax. In Kirk, J. M. , Sanderson, S. & Widdowson, J. D. A. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Geography: the Dialects of English in Britain and Ireland. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (1986). ‘Us Anglos are a cut above the field’: on objective pronouns in nominative contexts. English Studies 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1992). The present perfect puzzle. Language 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemola, J. & Filppula, M. (1992). Subordinating uses of and in the history of English. In Rissanen, , Ihalainen, , Nevalainen, & Taavitsainen, (1992).Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. (1992). Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and interpretation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1981). On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 17.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1991b). Variation and Diachrony, with Early American English in Focus: Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. (Bamberger Beiträge zur Englischen Sprachwissenschaft/University of Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 28.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1997). Be/have + past participle: the choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. In Rissanen, M. , Kytö, M. & Heikkonen, K. (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus–based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles (Topics in English Linguistics, 23). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. & Romaine, S. (1997). Competing forms of adjective comparison in Modern English: what could be more quicker and easier and more effective? In Nevalainen, T. & kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. & Rissanen, M. (1993). ‘By and by enters [this] my artificiall foole’: searching syntactic construction in the Helsinki Corpus. In Rissanen, M. , Kytö, M. & Palander-Collin, M. (eds.), Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. (Topics in English Linguistics 11.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1991a). Can (could) vs. may (might): regional variation in Early Modern English? In Kastovsky, (1991).Google Scholar
Kytö, M. , Rissanen, M. & Wright, S. (eds.) (1994). Corpora across the Centuries: Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, St Catharines College Cambridge, 25–27 March 1993. (Language and Computers. Studies in Practical Linguistics 11.) Amsterdam and Atlanta GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
LakofF, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol 2, Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1985). Bare-NP adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 16.Google Scholar
(forthcoming). Syntax. In Lass, R. (ed.) (forthcoming), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. III, 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1991). Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German. In Traugott, & Heine, (1991).Google Scholar
Leisi, E. (1964). Das heutige Englisch: Wesenzüge und Probleme, 3rd edn. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Leonard, S. A. (1929). The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700–1800. (University of Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature 25.) Madison WI: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
,Linguist (1900–). Discussion list moderated by Aristar, A. and Dry, H. .
Maling, J. M. (1983). Transitive adjectives: a case of categorial reanalysis. In Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, vol. 1. (Synthese Language Library 19.) Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Melchers, G. (1983). ‘It's a sweet thing, is tea-cake’ – a study of tag statements. In Jacobson, (1983).Google Scholar
Mencken, H. L. (1963). The American Language. 4th edn., abridged by McDavid, Raven I. jr.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. (1992). Das englische Perfekt: grammatischer Status, Semantik und Zusammenspiel mit dem Progressive. (Linguistische Arbeiten 277.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. (1988). That, a relative pronoun? Sociolinguistics and syntactic analysis. Edinburgh Studies in the English Language 1.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1993). On the social origins of language change. In Jones, (1993).Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and Social Networks, 2nd edn. (Language in Society 2.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. (1989). The standardization of English relative clauses. In Trahern, J. B. jr. (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the History of Language Change: in honor of John Hurt Fisher. (Tennessee Studies in Literature 31.) Knoxville TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Auwera, J. (1984) More on the history of subject contact clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 5.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. (1938). Histoire de la forme périphrastique ‘être +participe présent’ en germanique, vol. 2, Moyen-anglais et anglais moderne. (Collection Linguistique, La Societe Linguistique de Paris 43.) Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. (1947). Esquisse d'une histoire de la langue anglaise. (Les langues du monde 2.) Lyon: Edition I.A.C.Google Scholar
Murray, L. (1795). English Grammar: Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York: Wilson, Spence, and Mawman. [Reprinted by Scolar Press, Menston (English Linguistics 1500–1800 106), 1968.]Google Scholar
Nakamura, F. (1981). Observations on the language of Samuel Pepys's ‘Diary’: some peculiarities in the use of the progressive. Persica 8.Google Scholar
Nakamura, F. (1991). On the historical development of the activo-passive progressive: ‘the house is building’. In Chiba, S. (ed.), Aspects of English Philology and Linguistics (Festschrift Offered to Dr Masatomo Ukaji on his Sixtieth Birthday)Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Nehls, D. (1974). Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen: eine struktural-funktionale Analyse. (Linguistische Reihe 19.) Munich: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (1991). BUT, ONLY, JUST Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 51.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Ohlander, S. (1986). Question-orientation versus answer-orientation in English interrogative clauses. In Kastovsky, & Szwedek, (1986: II).Google Scholar
Orton, H. , Sanderson, S. & Widdowson, J. (eds.) (1978). The Linguistic Atlas of England. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1988). The English Verb. 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Parker, F. (1976). Language change and the passive voice. Language 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, K. C. (1970). Jane Austen’s English. (The Language Library.) London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. C. (1978). The Language of Thackeray. (The Language Library) London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Phillips, K. C. (1984). Language and Class in Victorian England. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: the New Science of Language and Mind. London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, J. , Weber, H. & Ho, M. L. (1984). The New Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Poussa, P. (1992). Pragmatics of this and that . In Rissanen, , Ihalainen, , Nevalainen, & Taavitsainen, (1992).Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1914–29). A Grammar of Late Modern English, (part I) 2nd edn., (part II) 1st edn. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1992). English nominal gerund phrases as noun-phrases with verb phrase heads. In Tracy, R. (ed.), Who Climbs the Grammar-tree. (Linguistische Arbeiten 281.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, J. (1985). Relative that– a centennial dispute. Journal of Linguistics 21.Google Scholar
Reuter, O. R. (1936). On continuative relative clauses in English: a feature of English style and syntax ascribed to Latin influence. (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 9.3.) Helsingfors: Societas Scientarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. , Wasow, T. A. , Mendoza-Denton, N. & Espinoza, J. (1995). Syntactic variation and change in progress: loss of the verbal coda in topic-restricting as far as constructions. Language 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1984). The choice of relative pronouns in 17th century American English. In Fisiak, (1984).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1991a). On the history of that/zero as object-clause links in English. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B. (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1991b). Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Kastovsky, (1991).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1993). Aspects of the development of the noun phrase in English. In Gotti, (1993).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1997). The pronominalization of one . In Rissanen, M. , Kytö, M. & Heikkonen, K. (eds.), Grammaticalization at Work: Studies of Long-term Developments in English. (Topics in English Linguistics, 24.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. , Ihalainen, O. , Nevalainen, T. & Taavitsainen, I. (eds.) (1992). History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. (Topics in English Linguistics 10.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. & Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: a case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1982). Socio-Historical Linguistics: its Status and Methodology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 34.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 3.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. & Brorström, S. (1987). The ‘Be/Have’ Variation with Intransitives in English: with Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. (Stockholm Studies in English 70.) Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. (1979). An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Sørensen, K. (1980). From postmodification to premodification. In Jacobson, S. (ed.), Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation: Stockholm, May 18–19, 1979. (Stockholm studies in English 52.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Scheffer, J. (1975). The Progressive in English. (North-Holland Linguistic Series 15.) Amsterdam and Oxford: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Seppänen, A. & Kjellmer, G. (1995). The dog that's leg was run over: on the genitive of the relative pronoun. English Studies 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shopen, T. (1971). Caught in the act: an intermediate stage in a would-be historical process providing syntactic evidence for the psychological reality of paradigms. Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, G. (1984). Deontic possibility: a diachronic view. English Studies 65.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, G. (1992). Case assignment in simple and coordinate constructions in Present-Day English. American Speech 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-M. (1983). ‘Subjunctive’ MAY’, a fossilizing pattern. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 16.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, E. S. C. (1992). The Oxford English Dictionary: CD-ROM version. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, O. (1984). The Politics of Language, 1791–1819. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stageberg, N. C. (1965). An Introductory English Grammar. New York, etc: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Stein, D. & Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (eds.) (1994). Towards a Standard English 1600–1800. (Topics in English Linguistics 12.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P. (1984). On the history of the verb-second rule in English. In Fisiak, (1984).Google Scholar
Strang, B. M. H. (1970). A History of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strang, B. M. H. (1982). Some aspects of the history of the be + ing construction. In Anderson, J. (ed.), Language Form and Linguistic Variation: Papers Dedicated to Angus Mcintosh. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 15.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sundby, B. (1983). Syntactic variation in the context of normative grammar. In Jacobson, (1983).Google Scholar
Sundby, B. , Bjørge, A. K. & Haugland, K. E. (1991). A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700–1800. (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 63.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. (1988). Sentence Adverbials in English: a Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Swan, T. (1990). The development of sentence adverbs in English. In Jahr, E. H. & Lorentz, O. (eds.), Tromsø Linguistics in the Eighties. (Tromsø Studies in Linguistics 11.) Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1898). A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical, vol. 2, Syntax, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of parentheticals in English. In Traugott, & Heine, (1991).Google Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstagde, I. (1987). The Auxiliary ‘Do’ in Eighteenth-century English: a Sociohistorical-linguistic Approach. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstagde, I. (1994). Standard and non-standard pronominal usage in English, with special reference to the eighteenth century. In Stein, & Tieken-BoonOstade, (1994).Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1972). A History of English Syntax: a Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1992). Syntax. In Hogg, R. M. (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. I, The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1997). Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: the case of promise and threaten . In Swan, T. & Westvik, O. J. (eds,), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.) (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol 2, Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. (Typological Studies in Language 19.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1984). Standard English in England. In Trudgill, P. (ed.), Language in the British Isles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Underhill, R. (1988). Like is, like, focus. American Speech 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanneck, G. (1958). The colloquial preterite in modern American English. Word 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varantola, K. (1983). Premodification vs. postmodification and chain compound structures. In Jacobson, (1983).Google Scholar
Varantola, K. (1984). On Noun Phrase Structures in Engineering English. (Annales Universitatis Turkuensis ser. B, 168.) Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963–73). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wald, B. (1983). Referents and topic within and across discourse units: observations from current vernacular English. In Klein-Andreu, F. (ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wales, K. (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, A. [R.] (1982). Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: a Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, A. (1985). The Structuring of English Auxiliaries: a Phrase Structure Grammar. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Warner, A. (1986). Ellipsis conditions and the status of the English copula. York Papers in Linguistics 12.Google Scholar
Warner, A. (1990). Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Adamson, , Law, , Vincent, & Wright, (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. (1993). English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 66.) Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. (1995). Predicting the progressive passive: parametric change within a lexicalist framework. Language 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wekker, H. C. (1987). Points of Modern English syntax LXIX. English Studies 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, M. (1990). The easy-to-please construction in Old and Middle English. In Adamson, , Law, , Vincent, & Wright, (1900).Google Scholar
Wood, M. (1992). Syntactic variability, borrowing, and innovation. Diachronica 9.Google Scholar
Wood, M. (1993). Gerunds and their objects in the Modern English period. In Marie, J. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1991: Papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, August 12–16, 1991. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 107.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wood, M. (1994). Radical satire and print culture, 1790–1822. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Youmans, G. (1986). Any more on anymore? Evidence from a Missouri dialect survey. American Speech 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization versus inflection: English n't . Language 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1977). Hierarchies of person. Papers from the 13 th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 13.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1991). Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. In Plank, F. (ed.) Paradigms: the Economy of Inflection. (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 9.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • SYNTAX
  • Edited by Suzanne Romaine, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge History of the English Language
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264778.004
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • SYNTAX
  • Edited by Suzanne Romaine, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge History of the English Language
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264778.004
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • SYNTAX
  • Edited by Suzanne Romaine, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge History of the English Language
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264778.004
Available formats
×