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-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:47:00.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - SYNTAX

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
Matti Rissanen
Edited by
Roger Lass
Roger Lass
Affiliation:
University of Cape Town
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In the course of the Middle English period, a number of major changes took place in the structure of English. The most important of these were the reduction of the system of inflectional endings, the reorganisation of the patterns of word order and the trend toward the use of analytic constructions instead of synthetic ones. These developments were related, and their roots can be found in Old English.

The effects of these changes on English syntax can be clearly seen in the first two centuries of the Modern period, from about 1500 to about 1700. At that time, the structure of the language was gradually established so that eighteenth-century standard written English closely resembles the present-day language. The language of most sixteenth-century authors still reflects the heritage of Middle English, whilst it is possible to read long passages from eighteenth-century novels or essays and find only minor deviations from present-day constructions.

It is thus obvious that a description of English syntax from the late fifteenth to the late eighteenth century should pay constant attention to change. It is equally obvious that the description will mainly focus on the first two Early Modern centuries. Sixteenth-century texts are characterised by a richness of variant forms and constructions, inherited from Middle English and, to a lesser extent, influenced by Latin. In seventeenth-century writing, the abundance of variants was gradually reduced.

Thus it is no wonder that an account of Early Modern syntactic developments easily creates an impression of a movement from greater variability and lack of organisation towards a more regulated and orderly state.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of the English Language , pp. 187 - 331
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2000

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

Abbott, E. A. (1870). A Shakespearian Grammar.London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds.). (1990). Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addision, Spectator. See Spectator.
Ahlqvist, A. (ed.). (1982). Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Åkerlund, A. (1911). On the History of the Definite Tenses in English.Cambridge: Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
Åkerlund, A. (1913/1914). A word on the passive definite tenses. Englische Studien 47.Google Scholar
Åkerlund, A. (1936/1937). I go a-fishing: an historical and geographical sketch of the a-phrase in its active significance. Studia Neophilologica 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C. (1986). Reconsidering the history of Like. Journal of Linguistics 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1982). The Genitive v. the of Construction: a Study of Syntactic Variation in Seventeenth-Century English.Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1984). Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ando, S. (1976). A Descriptive Syntax of Christopher Marlowe's Language.Tokyo: University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Ascham, Toxophilus=Ascham, R. (1545 [1868]). Toxophilus. Arber's English Reprints 7. London: A. Murray & Son.Google Scholar
Austin, F. O. (1984). Double negation and the eighteenth century. In Blake, N. F.. & Jones, C. (eds.). English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development.Sheffield: The Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Austin, F. O. (1985). Relative which in late eighteenth-century usage: the Clift family correspondence. In Eaton, et al. (1985).Google Scholar
Auwera, J. (1984). More on the history of subject contact clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 5.Google Scholar
Baghdikian, S. (1979). Ne in Middle English and Early Modern English. English Studies 60:. (1982). A functional perspective of the system of negation in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 3.Google Scholar
Bald, W. (1984). Form and functions of ONE: diachronic aspects. In Bald, W. & Weinstock, H. (eds.). Medieval Studies Conference in Aachen 1983. Language and Literature.Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Barber, C. L. (1976). Early Modern English.London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Basset = Basset, M. (1976). Translation of More's De Tristitia. In Miller, C. H. (ed.).Google Scholar
Bately, J. M. (1964). Dryden's revisions in the Essay of Dramatic Poesy: the preposition at the end of the sentence and the expression of the relative. Review of English Studies ns 15.Google Scholar
Bately, J. M. (1965). Who and which and the grammarians of the seventeenth century. English Studies 46.Google Scholar
Bennett, P. A. (1980). English passives: a study in syntactic change and relational grammar. Lingua 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeder, F. (1914). Die periphrastische Form des englischen Verbums im 17. Jahrhundert.Halle/Saale: Kaemmerer.Google Scholar
Berners, Froissart=Bourchier, J. (Lord Berners). (1523–1525 [1901–1903]). The Chronicle of Froissart (1523–1525). Ker, W. P. (ed.). (1901–1903). Tudor Translations.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. & Langendoen, D. T. (1972). The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.). Linguistic Change and Generative Theory.Essays from the University of California, Los Angeles, conference on Historical Linguistics in the Perspective of Transformational Theory, February 1969. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1992). The linguistic evolution of five written and speech- based English genres from the seventeenth to the 20th centuries. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Björling, A. (1925). The propword one in Early Modern English. Anglia Beiblatt 36.Google Scholar
Björling, A. (1926). Studies in the Grammar of the Early Printed English Bible Versions.Lund: Gleerupska Univ.-bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Blake, N. F. (1983). Shakespeare's Language: an Introduction.London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, N. F. (1992). Translation and the history of English. In Rissanen, et al. (1992)..Google Scholar
Bock, H. (1931). Studien zum präpositionalen Infinitiv und Akkusativ mit dem TO-Infinitiv. Anglia 55.Google Scholar
Boedtker, A. T. (1911). Critical Contributions to Early English Syntax. 2nd series. Christiania: Videnskabsselskabet i Christiania.Google Scholar
Bøgholm, N. (1906). Bacon og Shakespeare. En sproglig sammenligningCopenhagen: Martius Truelsen.Google Scholar
Bolingbroke = Bolingbroke, H. (1717 [1754]). The Works of the Right Honourable Henry St John, Lord Viscount Bolingbroke. Mallet, D. (ed.). (1754). London.Google Scholar
Breejen, B. (1937). The Genitive and its of-Equivalent in the latter half of the Eighteenth Century.Amsterdam: H.J. Paris.Google Scholar
Breivik, A. Hille (1994). On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal 18.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J. (1988). The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brook, G. L. (1976). The Language of Shakespeare.London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Brook, S. (1965). The Language of the Book of Common Prayer.London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. (1960–1962). Die englische Sprache: ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung, I–II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bullokar, W. (1586 [1980]). The Works of William Bullokar II Pamphlet for Grammar 1586. Turner, J. R. (ed.). The University of Leeds, School of English.Google Scholar
Bunyan = Bunyan, J. (1666, 1678). Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners and The Pilgrim's Progress from this World to that which is to come. Sharrock, R. (ed.). (1966). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burchfield, R. (1987). The bare infinitive in The Winter's Tale. In Fabian, B. & Rosador, K. T. v. (eds.). Shakespeare, Text, Language, Criticism: Essays in Honour of Marvin Spevack.Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Burchfield, R. (1990). A profile of the grammar of three sixteenth-century lives of Sir Thomas More and of an unrelated ‘drab’ prose work by Anthony Gilby. In Chaney, E. & Mack, P. (eds.). England and the Continental Renaissance: Essays in Honour of J. B. Trapp.Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar
Burton = Burton, R. (1621 [1660]). The Anatomie of Melancholy. 7th edn. London: Cripps.Google Scholar
Butler, C. (1634 [1910]). Charles Butler's English Grammar (1634). Eichler, A. (ed.). Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Caxton, Aesop=The Fables of Aesop. (1484 [1889]). Jacobs, J. (ed.). London: David Nutt.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, = The Letters of John Chamberlain. McClure, N. E. (ed.). (1939). The American Philosophical Society: Memoirs 12: 1. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Chapman, Bussy DAmbois=Chapman, G.. (1964). Bussy DAmbois. Brooke, N. (ed.). London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Christophersen, P. (1939). The Articles: a Study of their Theory and Use in English.Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Congreve, Way of the World=W. Congreve (1700). The Complete Plays of William Congreve. Davis, H. (ed.). (1967). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, C. (1685). Grammatica linguae anglicanae. London: Benj. Tooke.Google Scholar
Coote, C. (1788). Elements of the Grammar of the English Language. London: Printed for the author.Google Scholar
Coverdale, Ecclus=Coverdale, M. (1537 [1535]). The Bible. Southwark.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1912). A history of the English relative constructions. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 11: .Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1931). Syntax. A Grammar ofthe English Language III. Boston, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Dahl, T. (1951). Linguistic Studies in some Elizabethan Writings I: an Inquiry into Aspects of the Language of Thomas Deloney.Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Dahl, T. (1956). Linguistic Studies in some Elizabethan Writings II: The Auxiliary ‘do'.Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Danchev, A. & Kytö, M. (1994). The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Davis, N. (1971). William Tyndale's English of Controversy.London: University College LondonGoogle Scholar
Defoe, Plague year=Defoe, D. (1722). A Journal of the Plague Year. London: E. Nutt.Google Scholar
Defoe, Robinson Crusoe = Defoe, D. (1719). The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. London: W. Taylor.
Defoe, Roxana =D., Defoe (1724). Roxana, the Fortunate Mistress. Jack, J. (ed.). (1964). London: Oxford University Press.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 Historica 7.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1988). Socio-historical aspects of relativization in late sixteenth century English: c. 1550–1600. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 21.Google Scholar
Dekker, Gull's Hornbook = Dekker, T.. (1609 [1969]). The Gull's Hornbook. McKerrow, R. B. (ed.). (1969). Menston: Scolar PressGoogle Scholar
Dekker, Shoemaker's Holiday=Dekker, T. (1600). The Shoemaker's Holiday in The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker. Bowers, F. (ed.). (1962). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1985a). Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (1985b). The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, et al. (1985).Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1985c). Some observations on ‘being teaching’. Studia Neophilologica 57/2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (1990). The Old English impersonal revived. In Adamson, et al. (1990).Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993a). English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993b). Some recent changes in the English verb. In Gotti, (1993).Google Scholar
Deutschbein, M. (1917). System der neuenglischen Syntax.Cöthen: Otto Schulze.Google Scholar
Donne = Donne, J. (a1631). The Sermons of John DonnePotter, G. R. & Simpson, E. M. (eds.). (1953–1962). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Draat, P. F. (1903). The loss of the prefix ge- in the modern English verb and some of its consequences, II: the conjunction since. Englische Studien 32.Google Scholar
Draat, P. F. (1910). The adverb since. Anglia 33.Google Scholar
Draat, P. F. (1912a). The preposition since. Anglia 35.Google Scholar
Draat, P. F. (1912b). The omission of the nominative relative. Anglia 36.Google Scholar
Draat, P. F. (1915). The man which. Anglia 39.Google Scholar
Draat, P. F. (1919). The relative that. Neophilologus 4.Google Scholar
Dryden, Plays=Dryden, J. (1669–1694). The Dramatic Works. 6 vols. Summers, M. (ed.). (1968). New York: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
Dryden, Poems = Dryden, J. (1649–1700). The Poems of John Dryden. 4 vols. Kinsley, J. (ed.). (1958). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W. & Leek, F. (eds.). (1985). Papers from the fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Einenkel, E. (1912). Der Ursprung der Fügung a good one. Anglia 36.Google Scholar
Einenkel, E. (1903–1904). Das englische Indefinitum. Anglia 26: ; 27.Google Scholar
Einenkel, E. (1914). Nochmals zur Fügung a good one. Anglia 38.Google Scholar
Einenkel, E. (1916). Geschichte der englischen Sprache, II: Historische Syntax. 3rd edn. Strasbourg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. (1953). The Auxiliary ‘do’: the Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ellinger, J. (1983). Substantivsätze mit oder ohne that in der neueren englischen Literatur. Anglia 57.Google Scholar
Ellis, = Ellis, H. Sir (1824–1846). Original Letters Illustrative of English History; including numerous Royal Letters I–III. London: Richard BentleyGoogle Scholar
Elmer, W. (1981). Diachronic Grammar: the Histor y of Old and Middle English Subjectless Constructions.Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elphinston, J. (1765). The Principles of the English Language Digested. 2 parts. London.Google 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.Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Elyot, [Scolar Press] = Elyot, T. (1531 [1970]). The Boke Named The Governor, 1531. Menston: The Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Emma, R. D. (1964). Milton's Grammar.London, The Hague, Paris: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Engblom, V. (1938). On the Origin and Early Development of the Auxiliary ‘do'.Lund: G. V. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. (1980). On the history of subject contact clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1.Google Scholar
Fanego, T. (1990). Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare's English I–II. Studia Neophilologica 62: ;.Google Scholar
Fanego, T. (1991). On the origin and history of the English syntactic type (and) none but he to marry with Nan Page. English Studies 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, T. (1992). Infinitive complements in Shakespeare's English.Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago.Google Scholar
Farquhar, A Constant Couple = Farquhar, G. (1701). In Stonehill, C. (ed.). (1967). The Complete Works of George Farquhar 1. New York: Gordian.Google Scholar
Fernández, F., Fuster, M. & Calvo, J. J. (1994). English Historical Linguistics 1992.Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fielding, Jonathan Wild= Fielding, H. (1743). Jonathan Wild. (1932). Everyman edition. London: Dent.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fielding, Tom Jones =Fielding, H. (1749). The History of Tom Jones. Mutter, R. P. C. (ed.). (1984). London: Penguin English Library.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. & Leek, F. C. (1981). Optional vs. radical re-analysis: mechanisms of syntactic change. Lingua 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. (1983). The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. (1987). A ‘Case’ for the Old English impersonal. In Koopman, W., Leek, F., Fischer, O. & Eaton, R. (eds.). Explanation and Linguistic Change.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (1988). The rise of the for noun phrase to V construction: an explanation. In Nixon, G. & Honey, J. (eds.). An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang.London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1985). Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation.Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1995). Linguistic Change under Contact Conditions.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J. (ed.). (1984). Historical Syntax.Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, T. (1985). The rise of do-support in early Modern English: a reappraisal. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 10.Google Scholar
Franz, W. (1939). Die Sprache Shakespeares in Vers und Prosa. 3rd edn. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fridén, G. (1948). Studies on the Tenses of the English Verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare.Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fridén, G. (1957). On the use of auxiliaries to form the perfect and the pluperfect in late Middle English and early Modern English. Studia Linguistica 11.Google Scholar
Fridén, G. (1959). On the use of auxiliaries to form the perfect and the pluperfect in late Middle English and early Modern English. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 196.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1925). The periphrastic future with shall and will in Modern English. PMLA 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1940). American English Grammar.New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Fries, U. (1970). Demonstrativum und bestimmter Artikel. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 69.Google Scholar
Fries, U. (1994). Text deixis in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaaf, W. (1912). The origin of would rather and some of its analogues. Englische Studien 45.Google Scholar
Gaaf, W. (1926). A friend of mine. Neophilologus 12.Google Scholar
Gaaf, W. (1929). The conversion of the indirect personal object into the subject of a passive construction. English Studies 11.Google Scholar
Gaaf, W. (1930a). The passive of a verb accompanied by a preposition. English Studies 12.Google Scholar
Gaaf, W. (1930b). Some notes on the history of the progressive form. Neophilologus 15.Google Scholar
Gaaf, W. (1932). The absolute genitive. English Studies 14.Google Scholar
Gil, A. (1619, 1621 [1972]). Logonomia anglica (1619) I–II. Danielsson, B. & Gabrielson, A. (eds.). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, = Goldsmith, J. (1766). The Vicar of Wakefield in Friedman, A. (ed.). (1966). Collected Works of Oliver Goldsmith, vol. IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1984). The interplay of syntax and semantics in the development of the English modals. In Blake, N. F. & Jones, C. (eds.). English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development.Sheffield: The Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Gordon, I. A. (1966). The Movement of English Prose.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Görlach, M. (1991). Introduction to Early Modern English.Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotti, M. (ed.). (1993). English Diachronic Syntax.Bergamo: GueriniGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. M. (1959). Studies in the Syntax of the King James Version.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Gray, = Gray, T. (a1771). The Complete Poems of Thomas Gray, English, Latin and Greek. Starr, H. H. & Hendrickson, J. R. (eds.). (1966). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Frier Bacon = Greene, R. (c. 1590). The Honorable Historie of Frier Bacon, and Frier Bongay. Greg, W. W. (ed.). Oxford: Malone Society Reprints.Google Scholar
Halkett=, (1699). The Autobiography of Anne Lady Halkett.J. Nichols, G. (ed.). (1875). London: Camden Society, ns 13.Google Scholar
Hall, F. (1881). On the origin of had rather go and analogous or apparently analo gous locutions. American Journal of Philology 2.Google Scholar
Harvey, = Letter-book of Gabriel Harvey (1573–1980). Long, E.J. (ed.). (1884). London: Camden Society, ns 33.Google Scholar
Hausmann, R. B. (1974). The origin and development of Modern English periphrastic do. In Anderson, J. & Jones, C. (eds.). Historical Linguistics I. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Heltveit, T. (1967). Studies in English Demonstrative Pronouns: a Contribution to the History of English Morphology.Oslo: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Heywood, = Heywood, T. (1607). A Woman Kilde with Kindnesse. London: William Iaggard.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, R. (1994). On phrasal verbs in Early Modern English: notes on lexis and style. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Hope, J. (1994). The use of thou and you in Early Modern spoken English: evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A Natural History of Negation.Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Houston, A. (1989). The English gerund: syntactic change and discourse function. In Fasold, R. & Schiffrin, D. (eds.). Language Change and Variation.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hulbert, J. R. (1947). On the origin of the grammarians' rules for the use of shall and will. PMLA 62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, O. (1983). On the notion “possible grammatical change”: a look at a perfectly good change that did not quite make it. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 15.Google Scholar
Jack, G. (1988). The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, S. (1981). Preverbal Adverbs and Auxiliaries: a Study of Word Order Change.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B. (1951). Inversion in English with Special Reference to the Early English Period.Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. De Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I: 5. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1949). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johannisson, T. (1958). On the be and have constructions with mutative verbs. Studia Linguistica 12.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. (1755 [1979]). A Dictionary of the English Language … and the English Grammar. London: W. Strahern. Reprinted London: Times Books.Google Scholar
Jonson, B. (1640 [1954]). The English Grammar. In Percy, C. H. H. & Simpson, E. (eds.). Ben Jonson, vol VIII. The Poems. The Prose Works. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jonson=Jonson, B. (1598–1633 [1925–1947]). Ben Jonson. 8 vols. Herford, S. H. & Simpson, P. E. (eds.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (1991). Between hypotaxis and parataxis. Clauses of reason in Ancrene Riwle. In Kastovsky, (1991).Google Scholar
Jud-Schmid, E. (1956). Der indefinite Agens von Chaucer bis Shakespeare: die Wörter und Wendungen für ‘man’.Meisenheim/Glan: Hain.Google Scholar
Kakietek, P. (1970). May and might in Shakespeare's English. Linguistics 64.Google Scholar
Kakietek, P. (1972). Modal Verbs in Shakespeare's English.Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
Kakietek, P. (1976). The perfect auxiliaries in the language of Shakespeare. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 8.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1994). Studies in Early Modern English.Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (ed.) (1991). Historical English Syntax.Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1979a). Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1979b). Noun phrase accessibility revisited. Language 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellner, L. (1887). Zur Sprache Christopher Marlowes.Vienna: Verlag der K. K. Staats-oberrealschule.Google Scholar
Kellner, L. (1892). Historical Outlines of English Syntax.London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English.Dordrecht: Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, A. (1989). Syntactic change and the history of English modals. Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 16.Google Scholar
Kemp, W. (1979). On that that that that became that which which became what. In Clyne, P. F., Hanks, W. R. & Hofbauen, C. L. (eds.). Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kisbye, T. (1971–1972). An Historical Outline of English Syntax, I–II. Aarhus: Akademisk Boghandel.Google Scholar
Klemola, J. & Filppula, M. (1992). Subordinating uses of and in the history of English. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds.). The Structure of Language.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Knorrek, M. (1938). Der Einfluss des Rationalismus auf die englische Sprache. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der englischen Syntax im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert.Breslau: Priebatsch.Google Scholar
Kohonen, V. (1978). On the development of an awareness of English syntax in early (1550–1660) descriptions of word order by English grammarians, logicians and rhetoricians. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79.Google Scholar
König, E. (1985). Where do concessives come from? On the development of concessive connectives. In Fisiak, (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopytko, R. (1988). The impersonal use of verbs in Shakespeare's plays. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 21.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English: periphrastic do. In Fasold, R. W. & Schiffrin, D. (eds.). Language Change and Variation.Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1990). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. & Rissanen, M. (1992). A language in transition: the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. ICAME Journal 16.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. & Rissanen, M. (1983). The syntactic study of early American English: the variationist at the mercy of his corpus?Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. & Rissanen, M. (1993). ‘By and By Enters [This] My Artificiall Foole’: searching for syntactic constructions in the Helsinki Corpus. In Rissanen, et al. (1993).Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1991). Variation and diachrony, with American English in Focus. Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/ WILL.Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1994). BE vs. HAVE with intransitives in Early Modern English. In Fernández, F., Fuster, M. & Calvo, J. J. (eds.). English Historical Linguistics 1992.Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1996). Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1997). Be/have + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransi-tives from Late Middle to Modern English. In Rissanen, et al. (eds.), (1997a).Google Scholar
Langenfelt, G. (1933). Select Studies in Colloquial English of the Late Middle Ages.Lund: Gleerupska Univ. Bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Langenfelt, G. (1946). The roots of the propword one. Studier i modern språkvetenskap utgivna av Nyfilologiska Sällskapet i Stockholm 16.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). The Shape of English: Structure and History.London & Melbourne: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax.Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowth, R. (1775 [1979]). A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Scholars'facsimi les and reprints. New York: Delmar.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1906). Beiträge zur englischen Grammatik IV: der Ursprung der Fügung a good one. Anglia 29.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1913). Zur Vorgeschichte der Fügung a good one. Anglia 37.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1916). Berichtigung (Zur Erörtetung über a good one). Anglia 39.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (1988). The transition from the impersonal to the personal use of the verb like in late Middle English and Early Modern English – some previously neglected determinants of variation. In Markus, (1988).Google Scholar
Markus, M. (ed.). (1988). Historical English, on the Occasion of Karl Brunner's 100th Birthday.Innsbruck: AMOEGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, = Marlowe, C. (1586–1593). The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe 1–2. Bowers, F. (ed.). (1973). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, G. (1622, 1623 [1910]). Grammaire angloise. Brotanek, R. (ed.). Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mätzner, E. (1880–1885). Englische Grammatik. 3. Aufl. Berlin: WeidmannGoogle Scholar
Meier, H. H. (1953). Der indefinite Agens im Mittelenglischen 1050–1350: die Wörter und Wendungen für ‘man’.Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Millward, C. M. (1966). Pronominal case in Shakespearian imperatives. Language 42:. Reprinted in Salmon, & Burness, (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, Paradise Lost=Milton, J. (1667 [1952]). Paradise Lost in Darbishire, H. (ed.). (1952). The Poetical Works of John Milton I-II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English Syntax I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitsui, T. (1958). Relative pronouns in Shakespeare's colloquial English. In Araki, K., T. Egawa, Oyama, T. & Yasui, M. (eds.). Studies in English Grammar and Linguistics: a Miscellany in Honour of Takanobu Otsuka.Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Moessner, L. (1992). Relative constructions and functional amalgamation in Early Modern English. In Rissanen, et al (1992).Google Scholar
Moessner, L. (1994). Early Modern English passive constructions. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
More, [1557] =More, T. (1557). The Workes of Sir Thomas More wrytten by him in the Englysh Tonge. Ed. Rastell, W.. London.Google Scholar
More, T. = More, T. (1963–). The Complete Works of St Thomas More 1–15. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. (1938). Histoire de la forme périphrastique ‘^tre’ +participe présent en Germanique.Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1958). The English Syntactical Type ‘One the best man’ and its Occurrence in other Germanic Languages.Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1959). The Middle English syntactical type his own hand(s) with his own hands, himself with reference to other similar expressions. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 60.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). A Middle English Syntax. I. Parts of Speech.Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nagucka, R. (1980). Grammatical peculiarities of the contact-clause in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1.Google Scholar
Nagucka, R. (1984). Explorations into syntactic obsoleteness: English a-X-ing and X-ing. In Fisiak, (1984).Google Scholar
Nakamura, F. (1988). A word on the regulation of the auxiliary do: Samuel Pepys's Diary as a test case. Mulberry 37.Google Scholar
Nashe, = Nashe, T.. (1589–1601). The Works of Thomas Nashe. 4 vols. McKerrow, R. B. & Wilson, F. P. (eds.). (1958. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nehls, D. (1974). Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen: eine struktural-funktionale Analyse.Munich: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1989). A corpus of Early Modern Standard English in a socio-historical perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 90.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (1997). To Explain the Present: Studies in the changing English language in honor of Matti Rissanen.Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Rissanen, M. (1986). Do you support the do-support? Emphatic and non-emphatic do in affirmative statements in present-day spoken English. In Jacobson, S. (ed.). Papers from the the Third Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (1987). Change from above: a morphosyntactic comparison of two Early Modern English editions of The Book of Common Prayer. In Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (ed.). Neophilologica Fennica.Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (1991). ‘BUT, ‘ONLY’, ‘JUST’: Focusing Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique 51). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevanlinna, S. (1974). Background and history of the parenthetic as who say/saith in Old and Middle English literature. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75.Google Scholar
Nunnally, T. (1992). Man's son/son of man: translation, textual conditioning, and the history of the English genitive. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Ogura, M. (1990). What has happened to ‘impersonal’ constructions?Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 91.Google Scholar
Orr, J. (1948). The Impact of French upon English.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Otway, = Otway, T.The Works of Thomas Otway. 2 vols. (a1685 [1812]). London: F C. & J.Rivington etc.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, M. (1997). A medieval case of grammaticalization: Methinks. In Rissanen, et al. (eds.). (1997b).Google Scholar
Partridge, A. C. (1953). Studies in the Syntax of Ben Jonson's Plays.Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes.Google Scholar
Partridge, A. C. (1969). Tudor to Augustan English.London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Peitsara, K. (1992). On the development of the by-agent in English. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Peitsara, K. (1993). On the development of the by-agent in English. In Rissanen, et al. (1993).Google Scholar
Peitsara, K. (1997). The development of reflexive strategies in English. In Rissanen, et al. (eds.) (1997b).Google Scholar
Pepys, = Pepys, S. (1660–1619 [1970–1983]). The Diary of Samuel Pepys 1–11. Latham, R. & Matthews, W. (eds.). London: G. Bell..Google Scholar
Perez, A. (1990). Time in motion: grammaticalization of the be going to construction in English. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics 3.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poussa, P. (1992). Pragmatics of this and that. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1904–1926). A Grammar of Late Modern English. 4 vols. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Priestley, J. (1762 [1970]). Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language and Universal Grammar. Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Prins, A. A. (1952). French Influence in English Phrasing.Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Puttenham, G. (1589). The Arte of English Poesie. Willock, G. D. & Walker, A. (eds.). (1970). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Puttenham, G.Spectator= (1711–1714). The Spectator. 5 vols. Bond, D. F. (ed.). (1965). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rainer, E. M. (1989). Das Perfect im Spätmittel- und Frühneuenglischen: eine Frequenz- und Funktionsanalyse anhand von Brieftexten.Innsbruck: Institut für Anglistik, University of Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. & Nurmi, A. (1997). Dummies on the move: prop-ONE and affirmative DO in the 17th century. In Nevalanien, & Kahlas-Tarkka, (eds.), (1997).Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (1997). Indefinite pronouns with singular human reference. In Rissanen, et al. (eds.). (1997b).Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1991). The Noun Phrase in Early Sixteenth-Century English: a Study Based on Sir Thomas More's Writings.Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1994a). The development of the compound pronouns in -body and -one in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1994b). The position of adjectival modifiers in Late Middle English noun phrases. In Fries, et al. (eds.), (1994).Google Scholar
Reuter, O. (1936). On continuative relative clauses in English. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 9(3).Google Scholar
Reuter, O. (1937). Some notes on the origin of the relative combination the which. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 38.Google Scholar
Richardson, Clarissa = Richardson, T. (1747–1748 [1751]). Clarrisa, Or The History of a Young Lady. Everyman edition. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Richardson, Pamela =Richardson, T. (1739–1740 [1785]). Pamela, Or Virtue Rewarded … Everyman edition. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1967). The Uses of ‘one’ in Old and Early Middle English.Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1984). The choice of relative pronouns in seventeenth century American English. In Fisiak, (1984).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1985). Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in Early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1989). The conjunction for in Early Modern English. Nowele 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1991a). Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Kastovsky, (1991).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1991b). 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 & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1993). The development of the pronominal uses of one in Middle and Early Modern English. In Rissanen, et al. (1993).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1994). On the position of not in Early Modern English questions. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1997). The pronominalization of one. In Rissanen, et al. (eds.), (1997b).Google Scholar
Rissanen, M., Ihalainen, O., Nevalainen, T. & Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). (1992). History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M. & Heikkonen, K. (eds.). (1997a). English in Transition. Corpus- based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M. & Heikkonen, K. (eds.). (1997b). Grammaticalization at Work. Studies of Long-term Developments in English.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M. & Palander-Collin, M. (eds.). (1993). Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M., Kytö, M. & Palander-Collin, M. (eds.). (1993). Enter the Helsinki Corpus: Computer-Assisted Approaches to English Historical Linguistics.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1980). The relative clause marker in Scots English: diffusion, complexity and style as dimensions of syntactic change. Language in Society 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981). Syntactic complexity, relativization and stylistic levels in Middle Scots. Folia Linguistica Historica 1.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1982). Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology.Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1984). Towards a typology of relative-clause formation strategies in Germanic. In Fisiak, (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, C. H. (1893). The absolute participle in Middle English and Modern English. PMLA 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydén, M. & Brorström, S. (1987). The ‘be/have’ Variation with Intransitives in English.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. (1966). Relative Constructions in early Sixteenth-Century English, with Special Reference to Sir Thomas Elyot.Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. (1970). Coordination of Relative Clauses in Sixteenth-Century English.Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. (1983). English relatives revisited. Moderna Språk 77.Google Scholar
Saito, T. (1961). The development of relative pronouns in modern colloquial English: a statistical survey of the development of their usage seen in British prose plays from the sixteenth century to the present time. The Scientific Reports of Mugokawa Women's University 8.Google Scholar
Salmon, V. (1966). Sentence structures in colloquial Shakespearian English. Transactions of the Philological Society 1965. Reprinted in Salmon, & Burness, (1987).Google Scholar
Salmon, V. (1967). Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays. Leeds Studies in English ns 1. Reprinted in Salmon, & Burness, (1987).Google Scholar
Salmon, V. & Burness, E. (eds.). (1987). Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama.Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, M. L. (1972). Linguistic Evolution with Special Reference to English.Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, J. (1975). The Progressive in English.Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Scheurwegs, G. (1964). The relative pronouns in the sixteenth century plays Roister Doister and Respublica. A frequency study. English Studies, Presented to R. W. Zandwoort on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. English Studies 45: Supplement.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. (1992). Who(m)? constraints on the loss of case marking of wh-pro-nouns in the English of Shakespeare and other poets of the Early Modern English period. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Shadwell, = Shadwell, T. (1672). Epsom-Wells. In The Complete Works of Thomas Shadwell2. Ed. Summers, M.. (1927). London: The Fortune Press (Alten).Google Scholar
Shakespeare, = Shakespeare, W. (a1616 [1623). The Complete Works. Original Spelling Edition. Wells, S., Taylor, G., Jowett, J. & Montgomery, W. (eds.). (1986). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sheridan, = Sheridan, R. B. (1775–1759). The Plays of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Everyman edition. London: J. M. Dent & Co.Google Scholar
Smollett, Roderick Random =Smollett, T. (1748 [1960]). The Adventures of Roderick Random. Everyman edition.Google Scholar
Söderlind, J. (1951, 1958). Verb Syntax in John Dryden's Prose, 2 vols. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Sørensen, K. (1957). Latin influence on English syntax. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique du Copenhague 11.Google Scholar
Sørensen, K. (1980). From postmodification to premodification. In Jacobson, S. (ed.). Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation.Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Sørensen, K. (1983). The growth of cataphoric personal and possessive pronouns in English. In Davenport, M., Hansen, E. & Nielsen, H. F. (eds.). Current Topics in English Historical Linguistics.Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Spies, H. (1897). Studien zur Geschichte des englischen Pronomens im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert.Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Stahl, L. (1927). Der adnominale Genitiv und sein Ersatz im Mittelenglischen und Frühneuenglischen. Giessener Beiträge 3.Google Scholar
Stapleton, = Stapleton, T. (1565). A Fortresse of the Faith. Antwerp: John Laet.Google Scholar
StarkeyStarkey, T. (c. 1530). England in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth. Ed. Cooper, J. M.. (1893). Early English Text Society, extra series.Google Scholar
SteeleSteele, R. (1701–22 [1760–1771]). Dramatic Works. London.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1985a). Natürlicher syntaktischer Sprachwandel: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der englischen ‘do’-Periphrase in Fragen. München: Tudur.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1985b). Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Eaton, et al (1985).Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1985c). Stylistic aspects of syntactic change. Folia Linguistica Historica 6.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1986). Syntactic variation and change: the case of do in questions in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 7.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1990). The Semantics of Syntactic Change: Aspects of the Evolution of do in English. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 47.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, D. & Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon (eds.). (1994). Towards a Standard English 1600–1800.Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
SterneSterne, L. (a1768 [1956]). Tristram Shandy Everyman. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Stillingfleet, E. (1662). Origines sacrae.London: Henry Mortlock.Google Scholar
Stoffel, C. (1955). Had rather and analogous phrases. Taalstudie 8.Google Scholar
Strang, B. (1970). A History of English.London and New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strang, B. (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.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sugden, H. W. (1936). The Grammar of Spenser's Faerie Queene.Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Swan, T. (1988). Sentence Adverbials in English: a Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation.Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1892–1898). A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Swift, Journal to Stella = Swift, J. (1712–1713). Journal to Stella, I–II. Williams, H. (ed.). (1948). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (1982). Double negation and eighteenth-century English grammars. Neophilologus 66.Google Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (1985). Do-support in the writings of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu: a change in progress. Folia Linguistica Historica 6.Google Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (1986). Negative do in eighteenth-century English: the power of prestige. Dutch Quarterly Review 16.Google Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (1987). The Auxiliary ‘do’ in Eighteenth-Century English: a Sociohistorical-Linguistic Approach.Dordrecht: JCG Printing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (1989). Dr Johnson and the auxiliary do. Folia Linguistica Historica 10.Google Scholar
Tieken-BoonOstade, I. (1990). The origin and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: a case of destigmatization. Nowele 16.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. (1994). Any as an indefinite determiner in non-assertive clauses: evidence from Present-day and Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & König, E.(1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, I.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. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trnka, B. (1930). On the Syntax of the English Verb from Caxton to Dryden.Prague: Jednota Československych Matematiku a Fysiku.Google Scholar
Uhrström, W. (1907). Studies on the Language of Samuel Richardson.Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ukaji, M. (1973). Imperative constructions in Shakespeare. Studies in English Linguistics 2.Google Scholar
Ukaji, M. (1978). Imperative Sentences in Early Modern English.Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Ukaji, M. (1992). ‘I not say’: bridge phenomenon in syntactic change. In Rissanen, et al. (1992).Google Scholar
Vanbrugh, The Provoked Wife = Vanbrugh, J. (1726). The Provoked Wife in The Complete Works of Sir John Vanbrugh, vol. I. Dobree, B. & Webb, G. (eds.). (1925). Bloomsbury: The Nonesuch Press.Google Scholar
Vanneck, G. (1955). The colloquial preterite in modern American English. Word 14.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1946, 1952). A Syntax of the English Language of St Thomas More. 2 vols. Louvain: Librairie Universitaire.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1963–1973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wald, Zachrissons BoktryckeriThe Complete Works of St Thomas More 14.2. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.
Wallis, J. (1653). Joannis Wallisii grammatica linguae anglicanae. Kemp, J. A. (ed.). (1972). John Wallis' Grammar of the English Language.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Warner, A. (1983). Review article: D. W. Lightfoot, Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. (1990). Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. In Adamson, et al. (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster=Webster, J. (1623). The Works of John Webster.Lucas, F. L. (ed.). (1927). London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Weida, G. (1975). Der Gebrauch von ‘shall/should’ und ‘will/would’ in englischer Prosa am Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts.Augsburg: Blasaditsch GmbH.Google Scholar
White, J. (1761 [1969]). The English Verb: a Grammatical Essay.Menston: Scolar Press.Google Scholar
Wiegand, N. (1982). From discourse to syntax: for in Early English causal clauses. In Ahlqvist, (1982).Google Scholar
Wik, B. (1973). English Nominalizations in -ing Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects.Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Wikberg, K. (1975). Yes–no Questions and Answers in Shakespeare's Plays: a Study in Text Linguistics.Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Wilson =Wilson, T. (1553). The Arte of Rhetorique, for the Vse of All suche as are Studious of Eloquence, sette forth in English.London: R. Grafton.Google Scholar
Workman, S. K. (1940). Fifteenth-Century Translation as an Influence on English Prose.Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1995). Middle English {-ende} and {-ing}: a possible route to gram-maticalization. In Fisiak, J. (ed.) (1995).Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1989a). Discourse, style and the rise of periphrastic do in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 10.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1989b). On the stylistic basis of syntactic change. Folia Linguistica Historica 10.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1994a). The critic and the grammarians: Joseph Addison and the prescriptivists. In Stein, & Ostade, Tieken-Boon (1994).Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1994b). The mystery of the modal progressive. In Kastovsky, (1994).Google Scholar
Wurff, W. (1989). A remarkable gap in the history of English syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica 9.Google Scholar
Wycherley=Wycherley, W. (a1716). The Complete Works of William Wycherley.Summers, M. (ed.). (1965). New York: Russell & Russell Inc.Google Scholar
Yamada, M. (1971). The syntax of the ing-forms in Thomas Kyd. The Memoirs of the Faculty of Education, University of Shimane 5.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, R. (1973). Structural change in the English auxiliary system on the replacement of be by have. Folia Linguistica Historica 6.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 Roger Lass, University of Cape Town
  • Book: The Cambridge History of the English Language
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005
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 Roger Lass, University of Cape Town
  • Book: The Cambridge History of the English Language
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005
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 Roger Lass, University of Cape Town
  • Book: The Cambridge History of the English Language
  • Online publication: 28 March 2008
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005
Available formats
×