Aarts, Bas 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ackles, Nancy M. 1997. Historical syntax of the English articles in relation to the count/non-count distinction. PhD thesis: University of Washington.Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia 1998. The code as context: Language-change and (mis)interpretation. In Malmkjær, Kirsten and Williams, John (eds.) Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–68.Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia 1999. Literary language. In Lass, Roger (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. III 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 539–653.Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia 2007. Prescribed reading: Pronouns and gender in the eighteenth century. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 7. Available at: www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/Adamson.htm.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 1985. The semantic development of will. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Semantics – Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton Publishers, pp. 11–21.Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.) Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar

Aitchison, Jean 1981. Language Change: Progress or Decay? [London:] Fontana Paperbacks.Google Scholar

Algeo, John 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 375–409.Google Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, Cynthia L. 2007. Variation in the NP/DP in Old English: Determiner and possessive combinations. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Manling, Joan, and Manning, Chris (eds.) Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

Arad, Maya 1999. What counts as a class? The case of psych verbs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: 1–23.Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

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

Auer, Anita and González-Díaz, Victorina 2005. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism in English: A re-evaluation of its effects on actual language usage. Multilingua 24(4): 317–41.Google Scholar

Austin, John Langshaw 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Ayres, Alfred 1883 [1908]. The English Grammar of William Cobbett. Carefully Revised and Annotated. New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar

Bailey, Richard W. 2004. American English: Its origins and history. In Finegan, Edward and Rickford, John R. (eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bain, Alexander 1863. An English Grammar. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green.Google Scholar

Barker, Chris 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(4): 679–717.Google Scholar

Baron, Dennis E. 1986. Grammar and Gender. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte, and Gildea, Spike (eds.) 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bate, W. Jackson 1971. The Burden of the Past and the English Poet. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar

Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 2009. Word order. In Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds.) New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. 1 Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 241–316.Google Scholar

Beal, Joan C. 2010. Prescriptivism and the suppression of variation. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beal, Joan C., Nocera, Carmela, and Sturiale, Massimo (eds.) 2008. Perspectives on Prescriptivism. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Beckman, Natanael 1917. Hur uttryckes hos verbet framtid i forn- och nysvenskan? En provföreläsning och en önskelista. Språk och Stil 17: 1–16.Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay and Bybee, Joan 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59(1): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Behaghel, Otto 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–42.Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike 2009. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2): 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Behrens, Heike 2017. The role of analogy in language processing and acquisition. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra, and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.) The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–39.Google Scholar

Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3): 291–352.Google Scholar

Bentz, Christian and Winter, Bodo 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 1–27.Google Scholar

Berlage, Eva 2014. Noun Phrase Complexity in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bezuidenhout, Anne 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Bianchi, Claudia (ed.) The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 101–31.Google Scholar

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

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

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.) To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 253–75.Google Scholar

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

Birkmann, Thomas 1987. Präteritopräsentia: Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Björkstam, Harald 1919. De modala hjälpverben i svenskan. Lund: H. Ohlssons boktryckeri.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane 2006. Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua 116(10): 1670–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloom, Harold 1973. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bloom, Harold 1975. A Map of Misreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bock, Hellmut 1931. Studien zum präpositionalen Infinitiv und Akkusativ mit dem to-Infinitiv. Anglia 55: 114–249.Google Scholar

Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul 2002. Race and the Rise of Standard American. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, Kersti and Vincent, Nigel 2017. Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 642–63.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz, and Scott, Alan 2013a. Expression of possession in English: The significance of the right edge. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, and Scott, Alan (eds.) Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, and Scott, Alan (eds.) 2013b. Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel, and Walkden, George 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 363–82.Google Scholar

Boye, Kasper 2001. The force-dynamic core meaning of Danish modal verbs. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 33(1): 19–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brandt, Søren 1999. Modal Verbs in Danish. Copenhagen: Reitzel.Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6(3): 297–321.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. PhD thesis: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published as Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. New York: Garland, 1979.]Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 343–434.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.) Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1): 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida, and Wechsler, Stephen 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. Paper presented at the workshop on ‘The origin and development of verbal periphrases’, 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 10), Amsterdam, 16 August 1991. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/HAVETO.PDF.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–90.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian 1977 (1st edn.), 1990 (2nd edn.). Listening to Spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Browning, Robert 1846. Luria. In Bells and Pomegranates, Vol. 8: Luria; and a Soul’s Tragedy. London: Edward Moxon, pp. 4–20.Google Scholar

Butler, Charles 1634. English Grammar. Oxford: Printed by William Turner, for the author. (Facsimile reprint, with an introduction by Albert Eichler. Halle: Niemeyer, 1910.)Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, Fortmann, Christian, and Rohrer, Christian 1996a. Syntactic analyses for parallel grammars: Auxiliaries and genitive NPs. In COLING-96 Organizing Committee (eds.) COLING-96: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, pp. 182–7.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam, Niño, María-Eugenia, and Segond, Frédérique 1996b. Multilingual processing of auxiliaries within LFG. In Gibbon, Dafydd (ed.) Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, October 1996. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 111–22.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–23.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2011. Usage-based theory and grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–69.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William, and Perkins, Revere D. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bylin, Maria 2017. Hit och dit i prototypkategorin. Historien om viljas hjälpverbsstatus. In Sköldberg, Emma, Andréasson, Maia, Eryd, Henrietta Adamsson, Lindahl, Filippa, Lindström, Sven, Prentice, Julia, and Sandberg, Malin (eds.) Svenskans beskrivning 35: Förhandlingar vid trettiofemte sammankomsten, Göteborg 11–13 maj 2016. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions SV1-7/2006: 1–28.Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace and Danielewicz, Jane 1987. Properties of spoken and written language. In Horowitz, Rosalind and Jay Samuels, S. (eds.) Comprehending Oral and Written Language. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar

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

Cheshire, Jenny 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–93.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Christophersen, Paul 1939. The Articles: A Study of Their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 161–84.Google Scholar

Coates, Richard 1987. Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation. Journal of Linguistics 23(2): 319–40.Google Scholar

Copley, Bridget 2009. The Semantics of the Future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Craig, 1951: See SHC.Google Scholar

Creissels, Denis 2013. Control and the evolution of possessive and existential constructions. In van Gelderen, Elly, Cennamo, Michela, and Barðdal, Jóhanna (eds.) Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 461–76.Google Scholar

Crisma, Paola 2011. The emergence of the definite article in English: A contact-induced change? In Petra Sleeman and Harry Perridon (eds.) The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 175–92.Google Scholar

Croft, William 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar

Croft, William 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, David 1988. Rediscover Grammar with David Crystal. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Crystal, David 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curzan, Anne 2003. Gender Shifts in the History of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curzan, Anne 2014. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne 1979. Contemporary reaction to Rudolf Meringer’s speech error research. Historiographia Linguistica 6(1): 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cutler, Anne 2000. Listening to a second language through the ears of a first. Interpreting 5: 1–23.Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne and Fay, David 1978. Introduction. In Meringer, Rudolf and Mayer, Carl (eds.) Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine psychologisch-linguistische Studie, new edition with an introductory article by Anne Cutler and David Fay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. ix–xl.Google Scholar

Cuyckens, Hubert 1999. Historical evidence in prepositional semantics: The case of English by. In Guy, A. J. Tops, Betty Devriendt, and Geukens, Steven (eds.) Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary 2015. Morphology in the LFG architecture. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 64–83. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/20/lfg15.html.Google Scholar

Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Darwin, Charles 1998. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 3rd edn. with an introduction, afterword and commentaries by Paul Ekman. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Davies, Hugh Sykes 1960. Trollope. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark 2012. Some methodological issues related to corpus-based investigations of recent syntactic changes in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 157–74.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark and Fuchs, Robert 2015. Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide 36(1): 1–28.Google Scholar

Day, Samuel B. and Gentner, Dedre 2007. Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition 35(1): 39–49.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119(11): 1728–55.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3): 601–33.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik 2013. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, Ghesquière, Lobke, and Van de Velde, Freek (eds.) 2015. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka 2007. Parentheticals: An introduction. In Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.) Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

DENG = Sundby, Bertil, Bjørge, Anne Kari, and Haugland, Kari E. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, 1700–1800. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denison, David 1990. The Old English impersonals revived. In Adamson, Sylvia M., Law, Vivien A., Vincent, Nigel, and Wright, Susan (eds.) Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 111–40.Google Scholar

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

Denison, David 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar

Denison, David 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 279–304.Google Scholar

Denison, David 2012. Introduction to Part V. In Denison, David, Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris, and Moore, Emma, with the assistance of Miura, Ayumi (eds.) Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–50.Google Scholar

Denison, David and Cort, Alison 2010. Better as a verb. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 349–83.Google Scholar

Denison, David and Hundt, Marianne 2013. Defining relatives. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 135–67.Google Scholar

Denison, David and Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Editorial introduction. Transactions of the Philological Society 95(1): 1–8.Google Scholar

Denison, David, Scott, Alan K., and Börjars, Kersti 2010. The real distribution of the English ‘group genitive’. Studies in Language 34(3): 532–64.Google Scholar

Deo, Ashwini 2014. Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. In Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 393–409.Google Scholar

Deo, Ashwini 2015. Diachronic semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1): 179–97. Available at: www.annualreviews.org/toc/linguistics/1/1.Google Scholar

Dreschler, Gea 2015. Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar

Dyvik, Helge 1999. The universality of f-structure: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/LFG4-1999/.Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Eckert, Penelope 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.Google Scholar

Eddington, David and Silva-Corvalán, Carmen 2011. Variation in the use of deber and deber de in written and oral materials from Latin America and Spain. Spanish in Context 8(2): 257–71.Google Scholar

Ehret, Katharina, Wolk, Christoph, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2014. Quirky quadratures: On rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 263–303.Google Scholar

Eide, Kristin Melum 2005. Norwegian Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eliot, T. S. 1921. Tradition and the individual talent. In Eliot, T. S., The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 47–59.Google Scholar

Ellis, Andrew W. 1980. On the Freudian theory of speech errors. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. San Francisco: Academic Press, pp. 123–31.Google Scholar

Elmer, Willy 1981. Diachronic Grammar: The History of Old and Middle English Subjectless Constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Engdahl, Elisabet 1999. The choice between bli-passive and s-passive in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. NORDSEM Report 3. Available at: www.svenska.gu.se/digitalAssets/1336/1336829_engdahl-nordsem-passivechoice-1999.pdf.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nicolaeva, Irina (ed.) Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Faarlund, Jan Terje 2004. The Syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Falk, Hjalmar and Torp, Alf 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax i historisk fremstilling. Kristiania: Aschehoug and Co.Google Scholar

Falk, Yehuda N. 1984. The English auxiliary system: A Lexical-Functional analysis. Language 60(3): 483–509.Google Scholar

Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.) 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fernández de Castro, Félix 1999. Las Perífrasis Verbales en el Español Actual. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward 1998. English grammar and usage. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 536–88.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward 2004. American English and its distinctiveness. In Finegan, Edward and Rickford, John R. (eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 18–38.Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward 2006. English in North America. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.) A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 384–419.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1988. The rise of the for NP to V construction: An explanation. In Nixon, Graham and Honey, John (eds.) An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 67–88.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1989. The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 8(1–2): 143–217.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1990. Syntactic change and causation: Developments in infinitival constructions in English. PhD thesis: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1992. Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter (eds.) Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–88.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1994a. The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and infinitive construction in Dutch and English compared. In Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre, and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.) Language Change and Language Structure: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–133.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1994b. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78(1): 137–64.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1997. The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English compared with German and Dutch. In Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanisław (eds.) Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday, Vol. I Language History. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 265–80.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2011. Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2013. An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization: On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. Studies in Language 37(3): 515–33.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2015. The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of have-to once again. In Toupin, Fabienne and Lowrey, Brian (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 120–50.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga C. M. and van der Leek, Frederike C. 1983. The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 337–68.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem, and van der Wurff, Wim 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fleischman, Suzanne 1982. The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Reilly, Snitzer, and Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.) On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–72.Google Scholar

Frank, Anette and Zaenen, Annie 2002. Tense in LFG: Syntax and morphology. In Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe (eds.) How We Say WHEN It Happens: Contributions to the Theory of Temporal Reference in Natural Language. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 17–52.Google Scholar

Freud, Sigmund 1914. Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Authorized English edition, with introduction by Brill, A. A.. London: T. Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11): 1752–78.Google Scholar

Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Camarero, Garachana, Mar 2017. Perífrasis formadas en torno a tener en español: Ser tenudo/tenido ø/a/de + infinitivo, tener a/de + infinitivo, tener que + infinitivo. In Camarero, Mar Garachana (ed.) La Gramática en la Diacronía: La Evolución de las Perífrasis Verbales Modales en Español. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana Vervuert, pp. 229–86.Google Scholar

Garachana Camarero, Mar and Rosemeyer, Malte 2011. Rutinas léxicas en el cambio gramatical. El caso de las perífrasis deónticas e iterativas. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 6: 35–60.Google Scholar

García Fernández, Luis (ed.) 2006. Diccionario de Perífrasis Verbales. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar

Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M. C. 1984. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre 2010. Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5): 752–75.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre and Namy, Laura L. 2006. Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 297–301.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre and Smith, Linsey 2012. Analogical reasoning. In Ramachandran, V. S. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 130–6.Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, Anggoro, Florencia K., and Klibanoff, Raquel S. 2011. Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development 82(4): 1173–88.Google Scholar

Giusti, Giuliana 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) The New Comparative Syntax. London/New York: Longman, pp. 95–123.Google Scholar

Godden, M. R. 2003. Review of David W. Porter’s Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric’s Latin-Old English Grammar. Medium Ævum 72(1): 128–30.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gómez Torrego, Leonardo 1999. Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo. In Bosque, Ignacio and Demonte, Violeta (eds.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Vol. 2 Las Construcciones Sintácticas Fundamentales. Relaciones Temporales, Aspectuales y Modales. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp. 3323–89.Google Scholar

Gonçalves, Bruno, Loureiro-Porto, Lucía, Ramasco, José J., and Sánchez, David 2018. Mapping the Americanization of English in space and time. PLOS ONE 13(5): e0197741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197741Google Scholar

Gordon, E. V. 1927. An Introduction to Old Norse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grafmiller, Jason 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–96.Google Scholar

Grano, Thomas 2015. Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia M. 2011. Elementary principles of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In Borsley, Robert D. and Börjars, Kersti (eds.) Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 9–53.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney 1996. Introducing ICE. In Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.) Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.) Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3 Word Structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar

Greenblatt, Stephen, Cohen, Walter, Howard, Jean E., and Maus, Katharine Eisaman (eds.) 1997. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. and Hilpert, Martin 2012. Variability-based Neighbor Clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 134–44.Google Scholar

Grimberg, Carl 1905. Undersökningar om konstruktionen ackusativ med infinitiv i den äldre fornsvenskan. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi XXI: 205–35, 311–57.Google Scholar

Grimm, Jacob 1837. Deutsche Grammatik, Vol. 4. Göttingen: In der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J. (ed.) 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gumperz, John J. 2001. Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, and Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 215–28.Google Scholar

Hale, William Gardner and Buck, Carl Darling 1966. A Latin Grammar. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin 1989. From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(1/2): 287–310.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22(2): 315–51.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin 2013. On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject ‘want’ complements: Economic vs. iconic motivation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 26: 41–69.Google Scholar

Haug, Dag 2013. Partial control and anaphoric control in LFG. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG 2013 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 274–94. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/18/lfg13.html.Google Scholar

Hawkins, Roger 1981. Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 247–69.Google Scholar

Healey, Antonette diPaolo and Venezky, Richard L. 1980. A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The List of Texts and Index of Editions. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3): 183–221.Google Scholar

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

Heine, Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, and Kuteva, Tania 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honoré (eds.) Insubordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 39–64.Google Scholar

Heller, Benedikt 2019. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. PhD thesis: KU Leuven.Google Scholar

Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Grafmiller, Jason 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27.Google Scholar

Hellquist, Elof 1902. Studier i 1600-talets svenska. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar

Hernández Díaz, Axel 2006. Posesión y existencia. La competencia de haber y tener y haber existencial. In Company, Concepción Company (ed.) Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua Española, Primera Parte La Frase Verbal, Vol. 2. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 1053–160.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2008a. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2008b. The English comparative – Language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics 12(3): 395–417.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn (eds.) What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–74.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars, Smith, Nicholas, and Waibel, Birgit 2007. The Part-of-Speech-Tagged ‘Brown’ Corpora: A Manual of Information, Including Pointers for Successful Use. Freiburg: Department of English, University of Freiburg. Available at: http://clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/FLOB-Manual-tagged.pdf.Google Scholar

Hinterhuber, Hartmann 2007. Sigmund Freud, Rudolf Meringer and Carl Mayer: Slips of the tongue and mis-readings. The history of a controversy. Neuropsychiatrie 21(4): 291–301.Google Scholar

Hodson, Jane 2006. The problem of Joseph Priestley’s (1733–1804) descriptivism. Historiographia Linguistica 33(1/2): 57–84.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Douglas R. 2001. Epilogue: Analogy as the core of cognition. In Gentner, Dedre, Holyoak, Keith J., and Kokinov, Boicho N. (eds.) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 499–538.Google Scholar

Hofstadter, Douglas and Sander, Emmanuel 2013. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Hogg, Richard M. (ed.) 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. I The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.) 2006. A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holyoak, Keith J. and Thagard, Paul 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–99.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt, and Zeileis, Achim 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–74.Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1. (Issue edited by Anneli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi, Annotating Variation and Change.) Available at www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huber/.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19(2): 399–446.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney 2002. The verb. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–212.Google Scholar

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

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

Hundt, Marianne and Leech, Geoffrey 2012. ‘Small is beautiful’: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–88.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–42.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2012. Animacy in early New Zealand English. English World-Wide 33(3): 241–63.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David, and Schneider, Gerold 2012a. Retrieving relatives from historical data. Literary and Linguistic Computing 27(1): 3–16.Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David, and Schneider, Gerold 2012b. Relative complexity in scientific discourse. English Language and Linguistics 16(2): 209–40.Google Scholar

Hüning, Matthias and Booij, Geert 2014. From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica 48(2): 579–604.Google Scholar

Irwin, Anthea 2010. Social constructionism. In Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, and Kerswill, Paul (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 100–12.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Andreas and Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.) Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1968. English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Jäger, Anne 2013. The emergence of modal meanings from haben with zu-infinitives in Old High German. In Diewald, Gabriele, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, and Wischer, Ilse (eds.) Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages: With a Focus on Verbal Categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 151–68.Google Scholar

Jankowski, Bridget L. and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2014. On the genitive’s trail: Data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 305–29.Google Scholar

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jaworska, Ewa 1986. Prepositional phrases as subjects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 355–74.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto 1940. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V Syntax Fourth Volume. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Johnson, Samuel 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. In two volumes. London: Printed by W. Strahan.Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara 2000. Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jolly, Julius 1873. Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indogermanischen. München: Theodor Ackermann.Google Scholar

Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edn. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane/Penguin.Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 852–97.Google Scholar

Keizer, Evelien 2004. Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinction. English Language and Linguistics 8(2): 323–50.Google Scholar

Keizer, Evelien 2011. English proforms: An alternative account. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 303–34.Google Scholar

Ker, Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Kjellmer, Göran 1985. Help to/help ∅ revisited. English Studies 66(2): 156–61.Google Scholar

Klausenburger, Jurgen 2000. Grammaticalization: Studies in Latin and Romance Morphosyntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klausenburger, Jurgen 2008. Can grammaticalization be parameterized? In Seoane, Elena and López-Couso, María José (eds.) Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 171–82.Google Scholar

Köhler, Anton 1867. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Infinitivs im Gotischen. Germania 12: 421–62.Google Scholar

Kohnen, Thomas and Mair, Christian 2012. Technologies of communication. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 261–84.Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

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

Lagervall, Marika 2014. Modala hjälpverb i språkhistorisk belysning. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar

Landau, Idan 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger 1994. Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lau, Phoebe 2015. Semantic change and politeness: A study of verbs of commanding. MSc thesis: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation Paths of Have in English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Ledgeway, Adam 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Carretero, Marta, Hita, Jorge Arús, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.) English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.) Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 181–225.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M. 2013. A History of Psycholinguistics: The Pre-Chomskyan Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark 2007. WEV. Language Log, 3 August 2007. Available at: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004781.html.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lohmann, Arne 2011. Help vs help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 499–521.Google Scholar

Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo 2004. Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17: 189–215.Google Scholar

Longman 1991 = Woolford, John and Karlin, Daniel (eds.) 1991. The Poems of Browning, Vol. II 1841–1846. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

López-Couso, María José 2007. Adverbial connectives within and beyond adverbial subordination: The history of lest. In Lenker, Ursula and Meurman-Solin, Anneli (eds.) Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar

López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén 2015. Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: From adverbial subordination to complementation in English. Language Sciences 47(B): 188–98.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou 1999. Infinitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou 2005. The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lowth, Robert 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. (Facsimile edition, Alston, R. C. (ed.) English Linguistics 1500–1800. Menston: Scolar Press, 1967.)Google Scholar

Lund, G. F. V. 1862. Oldnordisk Ordföjningslære. København: Berlingske Bogtrykkeri ved L.N. Kalckar.Google Scholar

Lyons, Christopher 1986. The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 123–43.Google Scholar

Lyons, Christopher 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4(226): 1–16.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 1990. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 1997. Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In Ljung, Magnus (ed.) Corpus-Based Studies in English. Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17), Stockholm, May 15–19, 1996. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 105–31.Google Scholar

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

Malkiel, Yakov 1967. Multiple versus simple causation in linguistic change. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, Vol. II. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, pp. 1228–46.Google Scholar

Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor and Cukier, Kenneth 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

McEnery, Anthony and Xiao, Zhonghua 2005. HELP or HELP to: What do corpora have to say? English Studies 86(2): 161–87.Google Scholar

McGann, Jerome J. 1983. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprint, with a preface by the author and a foreword by D. C. Greetham, Charlottesville/London: University Press of Virginia, 1992.)Google Scholar

McIntosh, Carey 1998. The Evolution of English Prose, 1700–1800: Style, Politeness, and Print Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Menzer, Melinda J. 2004. Ælfric’s English Grammar. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 103(1): 106–24.Google Scholar

Mesthrie, Rajend and Bhatt, Rakesh M. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Michael, Ian 1987. The Teaching of English: From the Sixteenth Century to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Aiden, Aviva Presser, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, Joseph P., Hoiberg, Dale, Clancy, Dan, Norvig, Peter, Orwant, Jon, Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A., and Aiden, Erez Lieberman 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014): 176–82.Google Scholar

Milroy, James 1992. A social model for the interpretation of language change. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.) History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 72–91.Google Scholar

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1985. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1991. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce, Ball, Christopher, and Cameron, Angus 1975. Short titles of Old English texts. Anglo-Saxon England 4: 207–21.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce, Ball, Christopher, and Cameron, Angus 1979. Short titles of Old English texts: Addenda and corrigenda. Anglo-Saxon England 8: 331–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, Keith 2003. Had better and might as well: On the margins of modality? In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred, and Palmer, Frank (eds.) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129–49.Google Scholar

Miura, Ayumi 2015. Middle English Verbs of Emotion and Impersonal Constructions: Verb Meaning and Syntax in Diachrony. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Möhlig-Falke, Ruth 2012. The Early English Impersonal Construction: An Analysis of Verbal and Constructional Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Motley, Michael T. 1980. Verification of ‘Freudian slips’ and semantic prearticulatory editing via laboratory-induced spoonerisms. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. San Francisco: Academic Press, pp. 133–47.Google Scholar

Murphy, Raymond 2012. English Grammar in Use: A Self-Study Reference and Practice Book for Intermediate Learners of English, 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu 2012. Reconstructing syntactic continuity and change in early Modern English regional dialects: The case of who. In Denison, David, Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris, and Moore, Emma, with the assistance of Miura, Ayumi (eds.) Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–84.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1994. Its strength and the beauty of it: The standardization of the third person neuter possessive in Early Modern English. In Stein, Dieter and Ingrid van Ostade, Tieken-Boon (eds.) Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 171–216.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2017. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nieuwenhuijsen, Dorien 2006. Cambios en la colocación de los pronombres átonos. In Company, Concepción Company (ed.) Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua Española, Primera Parte La Frase Verbal, Vol. 2. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 1337–404.Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk 2001. The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses: Evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood? Studies in Language 25(2): 255–96.Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk 2008. The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4): 314–40.Google Scholar

Nygaard, M. 1865. Eddasprogets Syntax, Vol. II. Bergen: Ed. B. Giertsen.Google Scholar

O’Connor, Catherine, Maling, Joan, and Skarabela, Barbora 2013. Nominal categories and the expression of possession: A cross-linguistic study of probabilistic tendencies and categorical constraints. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, and Scott, Alan (eds.) Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 89–122.Google Scholar

Oga, Kyoko 2001. Two types of ‘of’ and theta-role assignment by nouns. In Akita, Mamiko and Oga, Kyoko (eds.) Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 6. Durham: Department of English and Linguistics, University of Durham, pp. 95–108.Google Scholar

Ogawa, Hiroshi 1989. Old English Modal Verbs: A Syntactical Study. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.Google Scholar

Ohio 1973 = King, Roma A. Jr. (ed.) 1973. The Complete Works of Robert Browning: With Variant Readings & Annotations, Vol. IV. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar

Olbertz, Hella 1998. Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Olbertz, Hella 2018. The diachrony of tener que and other possession-based modal periphrases in Spanish. In Rocha, Nildicéia Aparecida, Angélica Rodrigues, Terezinha Carmo, and Suzi Cavalari, Marques Spatti (eds.) Novas Práticas em Pesquisa: Rompendo Fronteiras. Araraquara: Laboratório Editorial, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

Olbertz, Hella forthcoming. Periphrastic expressions of non-epistemic modal necessity in Spanish: A semantic description. In Garachana, Mar, Sandra Montserrat i Buendía, and Pusch, Claus D. (eds.) From Composite Predicates to Verbal Periphrases in Romance Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ong, Teresa Wai See 2011. Prevent and stop complementation clauses: A corpus-based investigation of 19^th, 20^th and 21^st century American English. MPhil thesis: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Osselton, Noel 1988. Thematic genitives. In Nixon, Graham and Honey, John (eds.) An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, pp. 138–44.Google Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann 2014. The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics 24(1): 105–29.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1987. The typology of subordination: Results, actual and potential. Transactions of the Philological Society 85(1): 90–109.Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1990. Review of Anna Wierzbicka’s The Semantics of Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 223–33.Google Scholar

Panagiotidis, Phoevos 2003. One, empty nouns, and θ-assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2): 281–92.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. 1997. Appendix B. Genitives – A case study. In van Benthem, Johan and Alice ter Meulen (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language. New York: Elsevier, pp. 464–70.Google Scholar

Patterson, Lee 1985. The logic of textual criticism and the way of genius. The Kane-Donaldson Piers Plowman in historical perspective. In McGann, Jerome J. (ed.) Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, pp. 55–91.Google Scholar

Paul, Hermann 1909. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 4th edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Payne, John and Berlage, Eva 2014. Genitive variation: The niche role of the oblique genitive. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 331–60.Google Scholar

Payne, John and Huddleston, Rodney 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 323–523.Google Scholar

Payne, John, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Scholz, Barbara C., and Berlage, Eva 2013. Anaphoric one and its implications. Language 89(4): 794–829.Google Scholar

Penke, Martina and Rosenbach, Anette (eds.) 2007. What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics: The Case of Innateness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in northeast England. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 441–71.Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk and Van de Velde, Freek 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2): 543–81.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven 1994. The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Pinkster, Harm 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Harris, Martin and Ramat, Paolo (eds.) Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 193–223.Google Scholar

Pishwa, Hanna 1999. The case of the ‘impersonal’ construction in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 20(1/2): 129–51.Google Scholar

Porter, David W. (ed.) 2002. Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric’s Latin-Old English Grammar. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A. (eds.) Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar. Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 201–24.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina 2000. On stativity and causation. In Tenny, Carol and Pustejovsky, James (eds.) Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 417–44.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph 1965. Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Language 41(2): 205–17.Google Scholar

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

Core Team, R 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: www.R-project.org.Google Scholar

Radford, Andrew 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2009. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española, 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya 2016. The Theta System: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. In Everaert, Martin, Marelj, Marijana, and Reuland, Eric (eds.) Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–111.Google Scholar

Remberger, Eva-Maria 2010. The evidential shift of WANT. In Peterson, Tyler and Sauerland, Uli (eds.) Evidence from Evidentials. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 28, pp. 161–82.Google Scholar

Remberger, Eva-Maria 2011. Tense and volitionality. In Musan, Renate and Rathert, Monika (eds.) Tense across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 9–35.Google Scholar

Ricks, Christopher 2002. Allusion to the Poets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ringe, Don 2006. A Linguistic History of English, Vol. I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ringe, Don and Taylor, Ann 2014. The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti 1989. Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13: 16–19.Google Scholar

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

Rissanen, Matti 2008. From ‘quickly’ to ‘fairly’: On the history of rather. English Language and Linguistics 12(2): 345–59.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76(4): 367–88.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 205–49.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter 2006a. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus, and Schendl, Herbert (eds.) Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 143–66.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter 2006b. Processing complexity and competing sentential variants in present-day English. In Kürschner, Wilfried and Rapp, Reinhard (eds.) Linguistik International: Festschrift für Heinrich Weber. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers, pp. 51–67.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Ingrid van Ostade, Tieken-Boon and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.) Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 301–29.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.) 2009a. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia 2009b. New departures. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.) One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–423.Google Scholar

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

Rosenbach, Anette 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81(3): 613–44.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette 2014. English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 215–62.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Royster, James Finch 1918. The causative use of Hātan. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 17(1): 82–93.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani 2012. Exploring aspects of the Great Complement Shift, with evidence from the TIME Corpus and COCA. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 222–32.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani 2015. Linking Form and Meaning: Studies on Selected Control Patterns in Recent English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats 1983. English relatives revisited. Moderna Språk 77(3): 209–18.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 431–83.Google Scholar

Said, Edward W. 1975. The poet as Oedipus. New York Times, 13th April.Google Scholar

Schäfer, Roland 2015. Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Bański, Piotr, Biber, Hanno, Breiteneder, Evelyn, Kupietz, Marc, Lüngen, Harald, and Witt, Andreas (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, pp. 28–34.Google Scholar

Schäfer, Roland and Bildhauer, Felix 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Declerck, Thierry, Doğan, Mehmet Uğur, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Moreno, Asuncion, Odijk, Jan, and Piperidis, Stelios (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association, pp. 486–93.Google Scholar

Schmidt, A. V. C. (ed.) 1995. William Langland, The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Critical Edition of the B-Text Based on Trinity College Cambridge MS B.15.17, 2nd edn. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar

Schmied, Josef 1993. Qualitative and quantitative research approaches to English relative constructions. In Souter, Clive and Atwell, Eric (eds.) Corpus-Based Computational Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Setiya, Kieran 2014. Intention. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/intention/.Google Scholar

[Shakespeare, William] 1594. The First Part of the Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster. London: Printed by Thomas Creed, for Thomas Millington.Google Scholar

SHC = Craig, Hardin (ed.) 1951. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar

Siegel, Jeff, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Kortmann, Bernd 2014. Measuring analyticity and syntheticity in creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1): 49–85.Google Scholar

Siemund, Peter 2008. Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik 2008. The progressive and phrasal verbs: Evidence of colloquialization in nineteenth-century English? In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi, and Korhonen, Minna (eds.) The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 269–89.Google Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik 2014. Syntactic stability and change in nineteenth-century newspaper language. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–30.Google Scholar

Söderwall, K. F. 1884–1918. Ordbok öfver Svenska Medeltids-språket, Vol. I-III. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeri- och Stilgjuteri-Aktiebolaget.Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte 2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte, and Gildea, Spike (eds.) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–37.Google Scholar

Spradlin, Lauren 2016. OMG the word-final alveopalatals are cray-cray prev(alent): The morphophonology of totes constructions in English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1): 275–84.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413–43.Google Scholar

Stevens, Christopher M. 1995. On the grammaticalization of German können, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, and wollen. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 7(2): 179–206.Google Scholar

Stirling, Lesley 1999. Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In Collins, Peter and Lee, David (eds.) The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 273–94.Google Scholar

Stoffel, C. 1894. Studies in English Written and Spoken: For the Use of Continental Students, 1st series. Zutphen: W. J. Thieme.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim 1989. Subjects, specifiers, and X-bar theory. In Baltin, Mark R. and Kroch, Anthony S. (eds.) Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 232–62.Google Scholar

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

Strevens, Peter 1972. British and American English. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55.Google Scholar

Sundby, et al. 1991: See DENG.Google Scholar

Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt, and Röthlisberger, Melanie 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2): 109–37.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Rosenbach, Anette, Bresnan, Joan, and Wolk, Christoph 2014. Culturally conditioned language change? A multivariate analysis of genitive constructions in ARCHER. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. Teen Talk: The Language of Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Baayen, R. Harald 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2): 135–78.Google Scholar

Taylor, Ann 2008. Contact effects of translation: Distinguishing two kinds of influence in Old English. Language Variation and Change 20(2): 341–65.Google Scholar

Thackeray, William Makepeace 1840 [1898]. On the French school of painting. In The Works of William Makepeace Thackeray: In Thirteen Volumes, with Biographical Introductions by His Daughter, Anne Ritchie, Vol. 5 Sketch Books. London: Smith, Elder and Co., pp. 41–57.Google Scholar

Thackeray, William Makepeace 1850 [1898]. The Works of William Makepeace Thackeray: In Thirteen Volumes, with Biographical Introductions by His Daughter, Anne Ritchie, Vol. 2 The History of Pendennis: His Fortunes and Misfortunes, His Friends and His Greatest Enemy. London: Smith, Elder and Co.Google Scholar

van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid 2006. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism and the norm of correctness. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 539–57.Google Scholar

van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid 2009. An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid 2011. The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tissari, Heli 2003. LOVEscapes: Changes in Prototypical Senses and Cognitive Metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel 1997. Literacy and prescriptivism as determinants of linguistic change: A case study based on relativization strategies. In Böker, Uwe and Sauer, Hans (eds.) Anglistentag 1996 Dresden: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 83–93.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1972. The History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

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

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–40.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–71.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2016a. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1): 26–54.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2016b. Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? Constructions and Frames 8(1): 97–124.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2018. Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Bordería, Salvador Pons and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.) Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change. Leiden: Brill, pp. 17–50.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale (eds.) Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar