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
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Change in Contemporary English
  • Cited by 390
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
January 2010
Print publication year:
2009
Online ISBN:
9780511642210
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210
Subjects:
Grammar and Syntax, English Language and Linguistics: General Interest, Language and Linguistics, History of the English Language
Series:
Studies in English Language
Information

Book description

Based on the systematic analysis of large amounts of computer-readable text, this book shows how the English language has been changing in the recent past, often in unexpected and previously undocumented ways. The study is based on a group of matching corpora, known as the 'Brown family' of corpora, supplemented by a range of other corpus materials, both written and spoken, drawn mainly from the later twentieth century. Among the matters receiving particular attention are the influence of American English on British English, the role of the press, the 'colloquialization' of written English, and a wide range of grammatical topics, including the modal auxiliaries, progressive, subjunctive, passive, genitive and relative clauses. These subjects build an overall picture of how English grammar is changing, and the linguistic and social factors that are contributing to this process.

Reviews

Review of the hardback:'CCE suggests a number of issues that will no doubt inspire much research in the future, not only in English, but in any language for which electronic corpora are available over a fifty- to hundred-year period. … Regardless of any limitations of the corpora, the authors have developed a rigorous methodology for tagging, quantifying and analyzing electronic corpus materials, and revealing the multifactorial nature of change in use.'

Elizabeth Closs Traugott Source: English Language and Linguistics

'… the studies collected in this volume are very valuable for the analysis of ongoing language change. The observations of these very detailed descriptions of language use and variation in the second half of the twentieth century across the two major written varieties of English will - together with, for example, the quantitative data and qualitative analyses of the Longman Grammar … certainly be a highly welcome basis for further investigations into ongoing grammar change in English.'

Ursula Lenker Source: Anglia

'… this is a masterly book, no doubt the standard treatment of its subject for years to come. In an exemplary fashion it combines a meticulous attention to detail and empirically sound documentation with a fundamental interest in the nature and causes of syntactic change, and it provides far-reaching insights on both levels.'

Edgar W. Schneider Source: English World-Wide

Refine List

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Contents

Contents
References
References
Aarts, Flor and Aarts, Bas. 2002. ‘Relative whom: “a mischief-maker”.’ In: Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel and Lehmann, Hans-Martin (eds.). Text Types and Corpora. Tübingen Google Scholar: Narr, pp. 123–130.
Aarts, Jan. 1991. ‘Intuition-based and observation-based grammars.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London and New York Google Scholar: Longman, pp. 44–62.
Aarts, Jan and Meijs, Willem (eds.). 1984. Corpus Linguistics. Recent Developments in the Use of Computer Corpora in English Language Research. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Adamczewski, Henri. 1982. Grammaire linguistique de l'anglais. Paris Google Scholar: Armand Colin.
Aitchison, Jean. 1991. Language Change: Progress or Decay?Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Akimoto, Minoji. 1989. A Study of Verbo-nominal Structures in English. Tokyo Google Scholar: Shinozaki Shorin.
Algeo, John. 1992. ‘British and American mandative constructions.’ In: Blank, Claudia (ed.). Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honor of Otto Hietsch. Vol. II. Frankfurt Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 599–617.
Algeo, John. 1995. ‘Having a look at the expanded predicate.’ In: Aarts, Bas and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–217.
Allerton, David J. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English (Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7). London Google Scholar: Routledge.
Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The Genitive v. the of Construction: A Study of Syntactic Variation in 17th Century English (Lund Studies in English 62). Lund Google Scholar: CWK Gleerup.
Altenberg, Bengt. 1991 CrossRef | Google Scholar. ‘A bibliography of publications relating to English computer corpora.’ In: Johansson and Stenström, pp. 355–396.
Anderson, John M. 2001. ‘Modals, subjunctives, and (non-)finiteness.’ English Language and Linguistics 5 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 159–166.
Arnaud, Réné. 2002 Google Scholar. ‘Letter writers of the Romantic Age and the modernization of English (A quantitative historical survey of the progressive).’ http://web.univ-pau.fr/saes/pb/bibliographies/A/arnaud/romanticletterwriters.pdf [accessed 8 December 2007].
Ashley, Mike. 2000. The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazine from the Beginning to 1950. The History of the Science-Fiction Magazine, Vol. 1. Liverpool Google Scholar: Liverpool University Press.
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 Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 33–53.
Axelsson, Margareta Westergren. 1998. Contraction in British Newspapers in the Late 20th Century. Uppsala Google Scholar: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Bailey, Richard W. 1996. Nineteenth-Century English. Ann Arbor Google Scholar: University of Michigan Press.
Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-Day English. Edinburgh and London Google Scholar: Oliver and Boyd.
Barbieri, Federica. 2005. ‘Quotative use in American English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 33 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 222–256.
Barlow, Michael. 2003. Concordancing and Corpus Analysis Using MP 2.2. Houston, TX Google Scholar: Athelstan.
Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change: An Introduction to the Study of Linguistic Change in Standard Englishes in the Twentieth Century. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Bell, Allan. 1984. ‘Language style as audience design.’ Language in Society 13 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 145–204.
Bergenholtz, Henning and Schaeder, Burkhard (eds.). 1979. Empirische Textwissenschaft: Aufbau und Auswertung von Text-Corpora. Königstein Google Scholar: Scriptor.
Berglund, Ylva. 1997. ‘Future in Present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions.’ ICAME Journal 21 Google Scholar, 7–20.
Berglund, Ylva. 2000. ‘Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus.’ In: Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne (eds.). Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 35–49.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. ‘The progressive in Romance, as compared with English.’ In: Dahl, Östen (ed.). Tense and Aspect in the Language of Europe. Berlin/New York Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 559–604.
Bevier, Thyra Jane. 1931. ‘American use of the subjunctive.’ American Speech 6 CrossRef | Google Scholar(3), 207–215.
Biber, Douglas 1987. ‘A textual comparison of British and American writing.’ American Speech 62 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 99–119.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas. 1993. ‘Representativeness in corpus design.’ Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar(4), 243–257.
Biber, Douglas. 2001. ‘Dimensions of variation in 18th century registers.’ In: Diller, Hans-Jürgen and Görlach, Manfred (eds.). Towards a History of English as a History of Genres. Heidelberg Google Scholar: C. Winter [reprinted in: Conrad and Biber (eds.), pp. 201–214].
Biber, Douglas. 2003a. ‘Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy.’ In: Aitchison, Jean and Lewis, Diana M. (eds.). New Media Language. London Google Scholar: Routledge, pp. 169–181.
Biber, Douglas. 2003b. ‘Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis.’ In: Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). Corpus Analysis. Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 47–70.
Biber, Douglas. 2004. ‘Modal use across registers and time.’ In: Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberly (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language II. Unfolding Conversations. Berlin Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–216.
Biber, Douglas and Clark, Victoria. 2002. ‘Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures.’ In: Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María and Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.). English Historical Morphology. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September, 2000. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 43–66.
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics. Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. ‘Drift and evolution of English style: A history of three genres.’ Language 65 CrossRef | Google Scholar(3), 487–517.
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1997. ‘Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Lena (eds.). To Explain the Present. Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki Google Scholar: Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, pp. 253–275.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Blake, Norman. 1996. A History of the English Language. Basingstoke CrossRef | Google Scholar: Macmillan.
Blyth, Carl, Recktenwald, Sigrid and Wang, Jenny. 1990. ‘“I'm like, ‘Say what!’.” A new quotative in American narrative discourse.’American Speech 65 CrossRef | Google Scholar(3), 215–217.
Bodine, Anne. 1975. ‘Androcentrism in prescriptive grammar: Singular “they,” sex-indefinite “he,” and “he or she”.’ Language in Society 4 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 129–146.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. ‘Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries.’ In: Brettschneider, Gunter and Lehmann, Christian (eds.). Wege zur Universalienforschung. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. Tübingen Google Scholar: Narr, pp. 292–299.
Brinton, Laurel. 1996. ‘Attitudes towards increasing segmentalization: Complex and phrasal verbs in English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 24 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 186–205.
Brinton, Laurel and Akimoto, Minoji (eds.). 1999. Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins.
Bruyndonx, Jim. 2001. The Expanded Form in British English. Meanings and Constraints: A Corpus-illustrated Description. Unpublished PhD thesis, Catholic Google ScholarUniversity of Leuven.
Bryant, Margaret M. (ed.). 1962. Current American Usage. New York Google Scholar: Funk & Wagnalls.
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2006. ‘Diagnostics of age-graded linguistic behaviour: The case of the quotative system.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 3–30.
Bundt, Harry and Black, William. 2000. Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue: Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Benjamins.
Burchfield, Robert W. 3 1996. The New Fowler's Modern English Usage. Oxford Google Scholar: Clarendon.
Butters, Ronald. 1980. ‘Narrative go “say”.’ American Speech 55 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 215–227.
Butters, Ronald. 1982. ‘Editor's note [on be like “think”].’ American Speech 57 Google Scholar, 149.
Buyssens, Eric. 1968. Les Deux Aspectifs de la Conjugaison Anglaise au XXe Siècle. Brussels Google Scholar: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles.
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan and Pagliuca, William. 1985. ‘Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning.’ In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation. The Hague Google Scholar: Mouton, pp. 59–83.
Bybee, Joan, Revere, D.Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago Google Scholar: University of Chicago Press.
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael. 1999. ‘The English get-passive in spoken discourse.’ English Language and Linguistics 3 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 41–58.
Cattell, Norman Raymond. 1984. Composite Predicates in English. Sydney Google Scholar: Academic Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. ‘Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature.’ In: Tannen, Deborah (ed.). Spoken and Written Language. Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ Google Scholar: Ablex, pp. 35–53.
Chappell, Hilary.1980. ‘Is the get-passive adversative?’ Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 13 CrossRef | Google Scholar(3), 411–452.
Charleston, Britta. 1960. Studies on the Emotional and Affective Means of Expression in Modern English. Bern Google Scholar: Francke.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA Google Scholar.: MIT Press.
Christ, Oliver. 1994. ‘A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system.’ Proceedings of complex '94: Third Conference on Computational Lexicography and Text Research (Budapest, July 7–10, 1994). Budapest Google Scholar, pp. 23–32.
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English. A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Claridge, Claudia. 2008 Google Scholar. ‘Historical corpora.’ In: Lüdeling and Kytö (eds.), pp. 242–259.
Close, Reginald A. 1988. ‘The future in English.’ In: Bald, Wolf-Dietrich (ed.). Kernprobleme der Englischen Grammatik: Sprachliche Fakten und Ihre Vermittlung. Munich Google Scholar: Langenscheidt-Longman, pp. 51–66.
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Meanings of the Modal Auxiliaries. London Google Scholar: Croom Helm.
Coates, Jennifer and Leech, Geoffrey. 1980. ‘The meanings of the modals in British and American English.’ York Papers in Linguistics 8 Google Scholar, 22–34.
Collins, Peter C. 1996. ‘Get-passives in English.’ English World-Wide 15 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 43–56.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.). 2001. Variation in English. Multi-dimensional Studies. Harlow Google Scholar: Longman.
Cort, Alison and Denison, David. 2005 Google Scholar. ‘The category modal – a moving target?’ Paper presented at the First International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, University of Edinburgh.
Crawford, William J. 2009. ‘The mandative subjunctive.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–276.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow Google Scholar: Longman.
Crystal, David. 2004. The Stories of English. Woodstock and New York Google Scholar: Overlook Press.
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell.
Danchev, Andrei and Kytö, Merja. 2002. ‘The go-futures in English and French as an areal feature.’ Nowele 40 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 9–60.
Davidse, Kristin and Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. ‘On the middle construction in English and Dutch.’ In: Granger, Sylviane, Lerot, Jacques and Petch-Tyson, Stephanie (eds.). Corpus-Based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 57–73.
Haan, Pieter. 2002. ‘Whom is not dead?’ In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 215–228.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991a. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo Google Scholar: Kaitakusha.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991b. Tense in English. Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London and New York Google Scholar: Routledge.
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. Verbal Constructions. London and New York Google Scholar: Longman.
Denison, David. 1998 Google Scholar. ‘Syntax.’ In: Suzanne Romaine (ed), pp. 92–329.
Denison, David. 2001. ‘Gradience and linguistic change.’ In: Brinton, Laurel (ed.). Historical Linguistics. 1999. Amsterdam/Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 119–144.
Dennis, Leah. 1940. ‘The progressive tense: Frequency of its use in English.’ Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 55 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 855–865.
Depraetere, Ilse. 2003. ‘On verbal concord with collective nouns in British English.’ English Language Linguistics, 7 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 85–127.
Ding, Daniel. 2002. ‘The passive voice and social values in science.’ Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 32 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 137–154.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford Google Scholar: Clarendon.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English grammar. Oxford Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Downing, Angela. 1996. ‘The semantics of get-passives.’ In: Hasan, Ruqaiya, Cloran, Carmel and Butt, David (eds.). Functional Descriptions. Theory in Practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 179–205.
Elsness, Johan. 1994. ‘On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English.’ ICAME Journal 18 Google Scholar, 5–25.
Elsom, John. 1984. ‘The sad decline of the subjunctive.’ Contemporary Review 245 Google Scholar, 36–40.
Facchinetti, Roberta. 2002. ‘Be able to in Present-day British English.’ In: Kettemann, Bernhard and Marko, Georg (eds.). Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 117–130.
Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.). 2003. Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge Google Scholar: Polity.
Fanego, Teresa. 1996a. ‘On the historical developments of English retrospective verbs.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97 Google Scholar, 71–79.
Fanego, Teresa. 1996b. ‘The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760).’ Diachronica 13 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 29–62.
Fillmore, Charles. 1990. ‘Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences.’ Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 26 Google Scholar, 137–162.
Markku, Filppula,. 2002 Google Scholar. The English progressive on the move. Paper presented at International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Glasgow, August 2002.
Fischer, Olga. 1992. ‘Syntax.’ In: Blake, Norman (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.
Fischer, Olga and Wurff, Wim. 2006. ‘Syntax.’ In: Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.). A History of the English Language. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–198.
Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2004. ‘The meaning and uses of the progressive construction in an early eighteenth-century English Network.’ In: Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberly (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language II: Unfolding Conversations. Berlin / New York Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 131–174.
Fleisher, Nicolas. 2006. ‘The origin of passive get.’ English Language and Linguistics 10 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 225–252.
Fligelstone, Steven, Pacey, Mike and Rayson, Paul. 1997 Google Scholar. ‘How to generalize the task of annotation.’ In: Garside et al., pp. 122–136.
Fong, Vivienne. 2004. ‘The verbal cluster.’ In: Lim, Lisa and Foley, Joseph A. (eds.). Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 75–104.
Foster, Brian. 1968. The Changing English Language. London CrossRef | Google Scholar: Macmillan.
Fowler, H. W.2 1965 [1926]. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Francis, W. Nelson. 1979 Google Scholar. ‘Problems of assembling large computer corpora.’ In: Bergenholtz and Schaeder, pp. 110–123.
Francis, W. 1980 Google Scholar. ‘A tagged corpus – problems and prospects.’ In: Greenbaum et al., pp. 192–209.
Francis, W. Nelson and Kučera, Henry. 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston Google Scholar: Houghton Mifflin.
Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940. American English Grammar. The Grammatical Structure of Present-Day American English with Especial Reference to Social Differences or Class Dialects. New York Google Scholar: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gachelin, Jean-Marc. 1997. ‘The progressive and habitual aspects in Non-Standard Englishes.’ In: Schneider, Edgar (ed.). Englishes around the World. General Studies, British Isles, North America. Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins CrossRef | Google Scholar, pp. 33–46.
Garretson, Gregory and Ädel, Annelie. 2005 Google Scholar. ‘Who's speaking?: Evidentiality in US newspapers during the 2004 presidential campaign’. Paper presented at the ICAME 26 and AAACL6 conference, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 12–15 May 2005.
Garside, Roger, Leech, Geoffrey and McEnery, Anthony (eds.). 1997. Corpus Annotation. Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. Harlow Google Scholar: Addison Wesley Longman.
Garside, Roger and Smith, Nicholas. 1997 Google Scholar. ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS 4.’ In: Garside et al., pp. 102–121.
Geisler, Christer. 2007 Google Scholar. ‘A multivariate investigation of written British and American English.’ Anonymous submission to Corpus Linguistics 2007, Birmingham, 27–30 July 2007.
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia Google Scholar: Benjamins.
Gonzáles-Álvarez, Dolores. 2003. ‘If he come vs. if he comes, if he shall come: Some remarks on the subjunctive in conditional protases in Early Modern and Late Modern English.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104 Google Scholar, 303–313.
Granger, Sylviane. 1983. The BE + Past Participle Construction in Spoken English. Amsterdam Google Scholar: North Holland.
Green, Georgia. 1975. ‘How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question.’ In: Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics. Vol. III: Speech Acts. New York Google Scholar: Academic Press, pp. 107–141.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1986. ‘The Grammar of Contemporary English and A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.’ In: Leitner, Gerhard (ed.). The English Reference Grammar. Tübingen Google Scholar: Niemeyer, pp. 6–14.
Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (eds.). 1980. Studies in English Linguistics. For Randolph Quirk. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Greenbaum, Sidney and Whitcut, Janet. 1988. Longman Guide to English Usage. Harlow Google Scholar: Longman.
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2002. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York and London Google Scholar: Continuum.
Grund, Peter and Walker, Terry. 2006. ‘The subjunctive in adverbial clauses in nineteenth-century English.’ In: Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.). Nineteenth-Century English. Stability and Change. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–109.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. ‘The get-passive and Burzio's generalization.’ Lingua 66 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 53–77.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, Christian. 3 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold [1st edn Halliday, M.A.K., 1985 Google Scholar].
Hancil, Sylvie. 1996. ‘Subjectivity, politeness and the progressive form.’ Proceedings of the Edinburgh Linguistics Department Conference 1996 Google Scholar, pp. 112–117.
Hardie, Andrew and McEnery, Tony. 2004. ‘The were-subjunctive in British rural dialects: Marrying corpus and questionnaire data.’ Computers and the Humanities 37 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 205–228.
Hardy, Donald E. 2004. ‘The role of linguistics in interpretation: The case of grammatical voice.’ Belgian Journal of English Language and Literature 2 Google Scholar, 31–48.
Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Alabama Google Scholar: University of Alabama Press.
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1989. Lesen, Lehren, Lernen: Eine Rezeptive Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen Google Scholar: Niemeyer.
Heyvaert, Lisbet. 2003. A Cognitive-Functional Approach to Nominalization in English. Berlin CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. ‘Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in Early Modern English.’ In: Brinton, Laurel Google Scholar and Minoji Akimoto (eds.), pp. 133–165.
Hinrichs, Lars, Smith, Nicholas and Waibel, Birgit Google Scholar. forthcoming. The Part-of-speech-tagged ‘Brown’ Corpora: A Manual of Information, including Pointers to Successful Use. https://webspace.utexas.edu/lh9896/public/hinrichs/Manual_final.pdf.
Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora.’ English Language and Linguistics 11 CrossRef | Google Scholar(3), 335–378.
Hirtle, Walter. 1967. The Simple and Progressive Forms: An Analytical Approach. Quebec Google Scholar: Presses de l'Université Laval.
Hoffmann, Achim. 1972. ‘Die verbo-nominale Konstruktion: eine spezifische Form der nominalen Ausdrucksweise im modernen Englisch.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 20 Google Scholar, 158–183.
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 1997. Mandative Sentences. A Study of Variation on the Basis of the British National Corpus. Unpublished Lizentiats-Arbeit, UniversitäZürich Google Scholar.
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-based Study. London Google Scholar: Routledge.
Hofland, Knut and Johansson, Stig. 1982. Word Frequencies in British and American English. Bergen Google Scholar: Norwegian Computer Centre for the Humanities.
Holmes, Janet. 2 2001 [1992]. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Hommerberg, Charlotte and Tottie, Gunnel. 2007. ‘Try to or try and? Verb complementation in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 31 Google Scholar, 45–64.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘On some principles of grammaticalization.’ In: Traugott, Elizabeth and Heine, Bernd (eds.). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. I. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 17–35.
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Hübler, Axel. 1992. ‘On the get-passive.’ In: Busse, Wilhelm G. (ed.). Anglistentag 1991. Proceedings. Tübingen Google Scholar: Niemeyer, pp. 89–101.
Hübler, Axel. 1998. The Expressivity of Grammar: Grammatical Devices Expressing Emotion across Time. Berlin and New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1980 Google Scholar. ‘Criteria for auxiliaries and modals.’ In: Greenbaum et al., pp. 65–78.
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2005. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, Richard. 1994. ‘About 37% of word-tokens are nouns.’ Language 70 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 331–339.
Hundt, Marianne. 1997. ‘Has BrE been catching up with AmE over the past thirty years?’ In: Ljung, Magnus (ed.). Corpus-based Studies in English. Papers from the 17th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17), Stockholm, May 15–19, 1996. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 135–151.
Hundt, Marianne. 1998a. New Zealand English Grammar. Fact or Fiction. A Corpus-Based Study of Morphosyntactic Variation. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: John Benjamins.
Hundt, Marianne. 1998b. ‘It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of English.’ In: Lindquist, Hans, Klintborg, Staffan, Levin, Magnus and Estling, Maria (eds.). The Major Varieties of English (Papers from MAVEN 97). Växjö Google Scholar: Acta Wexionensia, pp. 159–175.
Hundt, Marianne. 2001. ‘What corpora tell us about the grammaticalisation of voice in get-constructions.’ Studies in Language 25 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 49–88.
Hundt, Marianne. 2004a. ‘Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in modern English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 47–69.
Hundt, Marianne. 2004b. ‘The passival and the progressive passive: A case study of layering in the English aspect and voice systems.’ In: Lindquist, and Mair Google Scholar, (eds.), pp. 79–120.
Hundt, Marianne. 2006. ‘“Curtains like these are selling right in the City of Chicago for $1.50”: The mediopassive in American 20th-century advertising language.’ In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.). The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 163–183.
Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English Mediopassive Constructions. A Cognitive, Corpus-Based Study of their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Hundt, Marianne. 2009a. ‘Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change?’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–37.
Hundt, Marianne. 2009b. ‘Global feature – local norms? A case study on the progressive passive.’ In: Siebers, Lucia and Hoffmann, Tobias (eds.). World Englishes: Problems – Properties – Prospects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 287–308.
Hundt, Marianne Google Scholar. forthcoming a. ‘These books (will) sell (well) – the development of constraints on mediopassives formation in late Modern and Present Day English advertising copy.’
Hundt, Marianne Google Scholar. forthcoming b. ‘How often do things get V-ed in Philippine and Singapore English? A case study on the get-passive in two outer-circle varieties of English.’
Hundt, Marianne and Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘“Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 221–242.
Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja and Biewer, Carolin (eds.). 2007. Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Jacobson, Sven. 1980. ‘Issues in the study of syntactic variation.’ In Jacobson, Sven, (ed.). Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm Google Scholar: Almquist and Wiksell. pp. 23–36.
James, Francis. 1986. Semantics of the English Subjunctive. Vancouver Google Scholar: University of British Columbia Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, 7 vols. London Google Scholar: George Allen and Unwin/Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London Google Scholar: George Allen and Unwin.
Jespersen, Otto. 1984. Analytic Syntax. Chicago, IL Google Scholar: University of Chicago Press [First published 1937].
Jin, Koichi. 2002. ‘On the middle voice in present-day English.’ In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Studies in English Historical Linguistics and Philology. A Festschrift for Okio Oizumi. Frankfurt Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 139–155.
Johansson, Stig. 1980. Plural Attributive Nouns in Present-Day English. (Lund Studies in English 59). Lund Google Scholar: CWK Gleerup.
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey and Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Manual of Information for the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus for Digital Computers. Oslo Google Scholar: University of Oslo.
Johansson, Stig and Norheim, Else Helene. 1988. ‘The subjunctive in British and American English.’ ICAME Journal 12 Google Scholar, 27–36.
Johansson, Stig and Oksefjell, Signe. 1996. ‘Towards a unified account of the syntax and semantics of get.’ In: Thomas, Jenny and Short, Michael (eds.). Using Corpora for Language Research: Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Leech. London Google Scholar: Longman, pp. 57–75.
Johansson, Stig and Stenström, Anna-Brita (eds.). 1991. English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide. Berlin and New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2 vols. London Google Scholar.
Joseph, Brian D. 2004. ‘The editor's department.’ Language 80 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 381–383.
Jucker, Andreas H. 1992. Social Stylistics. Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. Berlin and New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kearns, Kate. 2003. ‘Durative achievements and individual-level predicates on events.’ Linguistics and Philosophy 26 CrossRef | Google Scholar(5), 595–635.
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Kennedy, Graeme. 2001. ‘The distribution of agent marking and finiteness as possible contributors to the difficulty of passive voice structures.’ In: Aijmer, Karin (ed.). A Wealth of English. Göteborg Google Scholar: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, pp. 39–46.
Killie, Kristin. 2004. ‘Subjectivity and the English progressive.’ English Language and Linguistics 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 25–46.
Kohnen, Thomas. 2007. ‘From Helsinki through the centuries: The design and development of English diachronic corpora.’ In: Pahta, Päivi, Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu and Tyrkkö, Jukka Google Scholar (eds.). Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 2: Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/02/kohnen.
König, Ekkehard. 1980. ‘On the context-dependence of the Progressive in English.’ In: Rohrer, Christian (ed.). Time, Tense, and Quantifiers. Proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification. Tübingen Google Scholar: Niemeyer, pp. 269–291.
König, Ekkehard. 1995. ‘He is being obscure: non-verbal predication and the progressive.’ In: Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Dahl, Östen and Squartini, Mario (eds.). Temporal Reference, Aspect, and Actionality. Vol. II: Typological Approaches. Turin Google Scholar: Rosenberg and Sellier, pp. 155–167.
König, Ekkehard and Lutzeier, Peter. 1973. ‘Bedeutung and Verwendung der Progressivform im heutigen Englisch.’ Lingua 32 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 277–308.
Kortmann, Bernd. 2006. ‘Syntactic variation in English: A global perspective.’ In:Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April (eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell, pp. 603–624.
Kytö, Merja and Romaine, Suzanne. 1997. ‘Competing forms of adjective comparison in Modern English: What could be more quicker and easier and more effective?’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki Google Scholar: Société Néophilologique, pp. 329–352.
Kytö, Merja and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. ‘Adjective comparison and standardization processes in American and British English from 1620 to the present.’ In: Wright, Laura (ed.). The Development of Standard English 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–194.
Kytö, Merja, Rudanko, Juhani and Smitterberg, Erik. 2000. ‘Building a bridge between the present and the past: A corpus of 19th century English.’ ICAME Journal 24 Google Scholar, 85–97.
Kranich, Svenja. 2007 Google Scholar. ‘Interpretative progressives in Late Modern English.’ Paper presented at the 3rd Late Modern English Conference, Leiden, the Netherlands, 29 August–1 September 2007.
Krenn, Brigitte. 2000. The Usual Suspects. Data-oriented Models for Identification and Representation of Lexical Collocations. Saarbrücken Google Scholar: German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence.
Krug, Manfred. 1996. ‘Language change in progress: Contractions in journalese in 1961 and 1991/92.’ In: McGill, Steven Google Scholar (ed.). Proceedings of the 1995 Graduate Research Conference on Language and Linguistics (Exeter Working Papers in English Language Studies 1), pp. 17–28.
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin and New York CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, William. 1963. ‘The social motivation of a sound change.’ Word 19 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 273–309.
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA Google Scholar: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell.
Labov, William 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II: Social Factors. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell.
Labuhn, Ute. 2001. Von Give a Laugh bis Have a Cry. Zu Aspektualität und Transitivität der V + N-Konstruktionen im Englischen. Frankfurt/Main Google Scholar: Peter Lang.
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. ‘Passive resistance.’ Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8 Google Scholar, 149–162.
Lakoff, Robin. 1990. Talking Power. New York Google Scholar: Basic Books.
Lee, Yong Wey David. 2000. Modelling Variation in Spoken and Written Language: the Multi-dimensional Approach Revisited Google Scholar. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1966. English in Advertising. A Linguistic Study of Advertising in Great Britain. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003 Google Scholar. ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992.’ In: Facchinetti et al., pp. 223–240.
Leech, Geoffrey.3 2004 [1971]. Meaning and the English Verb. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. ‘Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 61–81.
Leech, Geoffrey. 2007 CrossRef | Google Scholar. ‘New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness,’ In: Hundt et al. 2007, pp. 133–149.
Leech, Geoffrey and Coates, Jennifer. 1980 Google Scholar. ‘Semantic indeterminacy and the modals.’ In: Greenbaum et al., pp. 79–90.
Leech, Geoffrey and Culpeper, Jonathan. 1997. ‘The comparison of adjectives in recent British English.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present. Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki Google Scholar: Societé Neophilologique, pp. 353–373.
Leech, Geoffrey and Fallon, Roger. 1992. ‘Computer corpora: What do they tell us about culture?’ ICAME Journal 16, 1–22 [reprinted in: Sampson, Geoffrey and McCarthy, Diana (eds.). 2004. Corpus Linguistics. Readings in a Widening Discipline. London and New York Google Scholar: Continuum, pp. 160–173].
Leech, Geoffrey, Francis, Brian and Xu, Xunfeng. 1994. ‘The use of computer corpora in the textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories.’ In: Fuchs, Catherine and Victorri, Bernard (eds.). Continuity in Linguistic Semantics. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 57–76.
Leech, Geoffrey, Rayson, Paul and Wilson, Andrew. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English. Harlow Google Scholar: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2005. ‘Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel for LOB and F-LOB.’ ICAME Journal 29 Google Scholar, 83–98.
Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2006. ‘Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992.’ In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.). The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Rodopi., pp. 185–204.
Leonard, Rosemary. 1968. The Types and Currency of Noun + Noun Sequences in Prose Usage 1750–1950. Unpublished MPhil thesis, University of London Google Scholar.
Leonard, Rosemary. 1984. The Interpretation of English Noun Sequences on the Computer. Amsterdam Google Scholar: North-Holland.
Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. Lund Google Scholar: Lund Studies in English.
Levin, Magnus. 2006. ‘Collective nouns and language change.’ English Language and Linguistics 10 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 321–343.
Lindquist, Hans. 2000. ‘Livelier or more lively? Syntactic and contextual factors influencing the comparison of disyllabic adjectives.’ In: Kirk, John M. (ed.). Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Papers from the Nineteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora (ICAME 1998). Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 125–132.
Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian. 2004a. ‘Introduction.’ In: Lindquist, and Mair Google Scholar, (eds.), pp. ix–xiv.
Lindquist, Hans, and Mair, Christian (eds.). 2004b. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins.
Live, Anna H. 1973. ‘The take-have phrasal in English.’ Linguistics 95 Google Scholar, 31–50.
Ljung, Magnus. 1980. Reflections on the English Progressive (Gothenburg Studies in English 46). Gothenburg Google Scholar: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the to Infinitive. Oxford CrossRef | Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja. 2008. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lyons, John. 1982. ‘Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sumA question mark before an example (invented or otherwise) indicates its questionable acceptability.’ In:Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang (eds.). Speech, Place and Action. New York Google Scholar: Wiley, pp. 101–124.
Mair, Christian. 1997. ‘The spread of the going-to-future in written English: A corpus-based investigation into language change in progress.’ In: Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanislaw (eds.). Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak. Berlin Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1537–1543.
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 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 105–131.
Mair, Christian. 2004. ‘Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: Statistics, frequencies and beyond.’ In: Mair, Christian and Lindquist, Hans (eds.). Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 121–150.
Mair, Christian. 2006a. ‘Tracking ongoing grammatical change and recent diversification in Present-Day Standard English: The complementary role of small and large corpora.’ In: Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, Andrew (eds.). The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 355–375.
Mair, Christian. 2006b. Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne. 1995. ‘Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43 Google Scholar(2), 111–122.
Mair, Christian, Hundt, Marianne, Leech, Geoffrey and Smith, Nicholas. 2002. ‘Short-term diachronic shifts in part-of-speech frequencies: A comparison of the tagged LOB and F-LOB corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 245–264.
Mair, Christian and Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. ‘Current change in English syntax.’ In: Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April (eds.). The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford CrossRef | Google Scholar: Blackwell, pp. 318–342.
Makkai, Adam. 1977. ‘The passing of the syntactic age: A first look at the ecology of the English verb take.’ In: Makkai, Adam (ed.). Linguistics at the Crossroads. Padua Google Scholar: Liviana, pp. 79–104.
Marmaridou, Sophia A. S. 1991. What's so Proper about Names?Athens Google Scholar: Parousia.
Mazaud, Carolin. 2004. Complex Premodifiers in Present-Day English. A Corpus-based Study Google Scholar. Unpublished PhD thesis, Heidelberg University.
McArthur, Tom (ed.). 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford and New York Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
McEnery, Anthony and Xiao, Zhonghua. 2005. ‘Help or help to: What do corpora have to say?’ English Studies 86 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 161–187.
Meints, Kerstin. 2003. ‘To get or to be? Use and acquisition of get versus be passives: Evidence from children and adults.’ In: Cuyckens, Hubert, Berg, Thomas, Dirven, René and Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.). Motivation in Language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 123–150.
Meyerhoff, Myriam and Niedzielski, Nancy. 2003. ‘The globalization of vernacular variation.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 534–555.
Mindt, Dieter. 2000. An Empirical Grammar of the English Verb System. Berlin Google Scholar: Cornelsen.
Misztal, Barbara. 2000. Informality. Social Theory and Contemporary Practice. London Google Scholar: Routledge.
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax. 2 vols. Oxford CrossRef | Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, Bruce and Robinson, Fred C.. 5 1992. A Guide to Old English. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell.
Moens, Marc and Steedman, Mark. 1988. ‘Temporal ontology and temporal reference.’ Computational Linguistics 14 Google Scholar(2), 15–28.
Möhlig, Ruth and Klages, Monika. 2002. ‘Detransitivization in the history of English from a semantic perspective.’ In: Pérez-Guerra, Javier, Fanego, Teresa and Couso, María José Lopez (eds.). English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 231–254.
Mondorf, Britta. 2007 CrossRef | Google Scholar. ‘Recalcitrant problems of comparative alternation and new insights emerging from Internet data.’ In: Hundt et al. 2007, pp. 211–232.
Mossé, Fernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. 2 vols. Paris Google Scholar: Klincksieck.
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2004. ‘Corpus data in a usage-based cognitive grammar.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the 23rd International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 85–100.
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Müller, Ernst-August. 1978. Funktionsverbgefüge vom Typ ‘give a smile’ und ähnliche Konstruktionen. Eine Textorientierte Untersuchung im Rahmen eines doppelschichtigen Semantikmodells. Frankfurt/Main Google Scholar: Peter Lang.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech. Helsinki Google Scholar: Société Néophilologique.
Myhill, John. 1995. ‘Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals.’ Linguistics. An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 33 Google Scholar, 157–211.
Myhill, John. 1996. ‘The development of the strong obligation system in American English.’ American Speech 71 CrossRef | Google Scholar(4), 339–388.
Nakamura, Junsaku. 1991. ‘The relationship among genres in the LOB corpus based upon the distribution of grammatical tags.’ JACET Bulletin 22 Google Scholar, 44–74.
Nehls, Dietrich. 1988. ‘On the development of the grammatical category of verbal aspect in English.’ In: Klegraf, Josef and Nehls, Dietrich (eds.). Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel's 60th Birthday. Heidelberg Google Scholar: Groos, pp. 173–198.
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. ‘The spread of the progressive and its “future” use.’ English Language and Linguistics 11 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 191–207.
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2002. ‘The rise of who in Early Modern English.’ In: Poussa, Patricia (ed.). Relativization on the North Sea Littoral. Munich Google Scholar: Lincom Europa, pp. 109–121.
Nickel, Gerhard. 1968. ‘Complex verbal structures in English.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics 6, 1–21 [reprinted in Dietrich Nehls (ed.). Studies in Descriptive English Grammar. Heidelberg: Julius Groos, 1978 Google Scholar, pp. 63–83].
Nokkonen, Soili. 2006. ‘The semantic variation of NEED TO in four recent British corpora.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 29–71.
Nuñez Pertejo, Paloma. 2004. The Progressive in the History of English: with Special Reference to the Early Modern English Period. A Corpus Based Study. München Google Scholar: Lincom Europa.
Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa. 2006. ‘The passive in nineteenth-century scientific writing.’ In: Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Eric (eds.). Nineteenth-Century English. Stability and Change. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–135.
Olofsson, Arne. 1990. ‘A participle caught in the act: On the prepositional use of following.’ Studia Neophilologica 62 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 23–35.
Olsson, Yngve. 1961. On the Syntax of the English Verb with Special Reference to “have a look” and Similar Complex Structures (Gothenburg Studies in English 12). Stockholm Google Scholar: Almquist and Wiksell.
Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th Century (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 94). Uppsala Google Scholar: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Palmer, Frank R.2 1990 [1979]. Modality and the English Modals. London and New York Google Scholar: Longman.
Palmer, Frank R. 1999. ‘Mood and modality: Basic principles.’ In: Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Elsevier, pp. 229–235.
Palmer, Frank R.2 2001 [1986]. Mood and Modality. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Frank R. 2003 Google Scholar. ‘Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues.’ In: Facchinetti et al., pp. 1–17.
Pauwels, Anne. 1998. ‘Feminist language planning: Has it been worthwhile?’ at http://www.linguistik-online.de/heft1_99/pauwels.htm. Linguistik online1, 1/98. Viewed 1 April 2009 Google Scholar.
Peters, Pam. 1998. ‘The survival of the subjunctive: Evidence of its use in Australia and elsewhere.’ English World-Wide 19 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 87–103.
Peters, Pam. 2000. ‘Paradigm split.’ In: Mair, Christian and Hundt, Marianne (eds.). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 1999). Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 301–312.
Peters, Pam. 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Popper, Karl R.2 1979 [1972]. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford Google Scholar: Clarendon Press.
Potter, Simeon. 2 1975 [1969]. Changing English. London Google Scholar: Deutsch.
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. For the Use of Continental, Especially Dutch, Students. Pt. 2, The Parts of Speech, Section 2, The Verb and the Particles. Groningen Google Scholar: Noordhoff.
Pratt, Lynda and Denison, David. 2000. ‘The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle.’ Language Sciences 22 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 401–422.
Prince, Ellen F. 1972. ‘A note on aspect in English: The take-a-walk construction.’ In: Plötz, Senta (ed.). Transformationelle Analyse. Frankfurt/Main Google Scholar: Athenäum, pp. 409–420.
Quirk, Randolph. 1995. Grammatical and Lexical Variance in English. London Google Scholar: Longman.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York Google Scholar: Longman.
Quirk, Randolph and Rusiecki, Jan. 1982. ‘Grammatical data by elicitation.’ In: Anderson, John (ed.). Language Form and Linguistic Variation. Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 379–394.
Raab-Fischer, Roswitha. 1995. ‘Löst der Genitiv die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützte Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch.’ Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43 Google Scholar, 123–132.
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar. A First Course. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Rayson, Paul, Dawn Archer, Scott Piao and McEnery, Tony. 2004. ‘The UCREL semantic analysis system.’ In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP Tasks, in association with the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. (LREC2004), 25 May, 2004. Lisbon Google Scholar, pp. 7–12.
Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew and Leech, Geoffrey. 2002. ‘Grammatical word class variation within the British National Corpus Sampler.’ In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Papers from the Twenty First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora – Sydney 2000. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 295–306.
Renský, Miroslav. 1966. ‘English verbo-nominal phrases: Some structural and stylistic aspects.’ Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1 Google Scholar, 289–299.
Rickford, John R., Mendoza-Denton, Norma, Wasow, Thomas A. and Espinoza, Juli. 1995. ‘Syntactic variation and change in progress: Loss of the verbal coda in topic restricting as far as constructions.’ Language 71 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 102–131.
Rinzler, Simone. 2004. ‘Pragmatique d'un genre: Communication institutionelle, monologisme et aspect passif.’ Anglophonia 16 Google Scholar, 207–225.
Rissanen, Matti. 1986. ‘The choice of relative pronouns in seventeenth century American English.’ In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Historical Syntax. Berlin Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 417–435.
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. ‘Syntax.’ In: Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–331.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1990. ‘Aspekte einer vergleichenden Typologie des Englischen und Deutschen: Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Buch von John A. Hawkins.’ In: Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.). Kontrastive Linguistik. Frankfurt, Bern, New York and Paris Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 133–152.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. ‘On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English.’ English Studies 16 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 367–388.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. ‘Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English.’ Cognitive Linguistics 7 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 149–182.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2006. ‘The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system.’ In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Rittand, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.). Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms. Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt/Main and Wien Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 143–166.
Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). 1998. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Romaine, Suzanne and Lange, Deborah. 1991. ‘The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress.’ American Speech 66 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 227–279.
Römer, Ute. 2005. Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins.
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin CrossRef | Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. ‘Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 379–412.
Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. ‘On the track of noun+noun constructions in Modern English.’ In: Houswitschka, Christoph, Knappe, Gabriele and Müller, Anja (eds.). Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg. Proceedings. Trier Google Scholar: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 543–557.
Rudanko, Juhani. 1999. Diachronic Studies of English Complementation Patterns. Lanham, MD Google Scholar: University Press of America.
Rudanko, Juhani. 2000. Corpora and Complementation. Lanham, MD Google Scholar: University Press of America.
Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. ‘Watching English grammar change: A case study on complement selection in British and American English.’ English Language and Linguistics 10 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 31–48.
Ryan, William M. 1961. ‘Pseudo-subjunctive were.’ American Speech 36 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 48–53.
Rydén, Mats. 1975. ‘Noun-name collocations in British English newspaper language.’ Studia Neophilologica 47 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 14–39.
Rydén, Mats. 1997. ‘On the panchronic core meaning of the English progressive.’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki Google Scholar: Société Néophilologique, pp. 419–429.
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York Google Scholar: Academic Press.
Sag, Ivan. 1973. ‘On the state of progress on progressives and statives.’ In: Bailey, Charles-James and Shuy, Roger (eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Washington Google Scholar: Georgetown University Press, pp. 83–95.
Salton, Gerard. 1989. Automatic Text Processing. Reading, MA Google Scholar: Addison-Wesley.
Samuels, Michael. 1972. Linguistic Evolution. With Special Reference to English. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Sankoff, David. 1988. ‘Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation.’ In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.). Linguistics. The Cambridge Survey. Vol. 4: Language. the Socio-Cultural Context. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–161.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. London Google Scholar: Harvest Books [original publisher Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.].
Scheffer, Johannes. 1975. The Progressive in English. Amsterdam Google Scholar: North-Holland.
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. ‘The conditional subjunctive.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 277–305.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2005. ‘The subjunctive in Philippine English.’ In: Dayag, Danilo T. and Quakenbusch, J. Stephen (eds.). Linguistics and Language Education in the Philippines and Beyond. A Festschrift in Honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. Manila Google Scholar: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 27–40.
Scott, Mike. 1999. WordSmith Tools. Oxford Google Scholar: Oxford University Press.
Seoane, Elena. 2006a. ‘Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English.’ In: Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.). Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms. English from 1500–2000. Bern Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 191–211.
Seoane, Elena. 2006b. ‘Information structure and word order change: The passive as an information-rearranging strategy in the history of English.’ In: Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.). The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford CrossRef | Google Scholar: Blackwell, pp. 360–391.
Seoane, Elena and Loureiro-Porto, Lucia. 2005. ‘On the colloquialization of scientific British and American English.’ ESP Across Cultures 2 Google Scholar, 106–118.
Seoane, Elena and Williams, Christopher. 2006. ‘Changing the rules: A comparison of recent trends in English in academic scientific discourse and prescriptive legal discourse.’ In: Dossena, Marina and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). Diachronic Perspectives on Domain-Specific English. Bern Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 255–276.
Seoane-Posse, Elena. 2002 Google Scholar. ‘On the evolution of scientific American and British English, with special reference to recent and ongoing changes in the use of the passive voice.’ Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, University of Glasgow, 21–26 August, 2002.
Serpollet, Noëlle. 2001. ‘The mandative subjunctive in British English seems to be alive and kicking…Is it due to American influence?’ In: Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew and Khoja, Shereen (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference. Lancaster University: UCREL Technical Papers 13 Google Scholar, 531–542.
Serpollet, Noëlle. 2003. Should and the Subjunctive: A Corpus-Based Approach to Mandative Constructions in English Google Scholar. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1985. ‘Passives and related constructions: A prototype analysis.’ Language 61 CrossRef | Google Scholar(4), 821–848.
Sigley, Robert. 1997. ‘Text categories and where you can stick them: A crude formality index.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 199–237.
Smith, Nicholas. 2002. ‘Ever moving on. Changes in the progressive in recent British English.’ In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Amsterdam Google Scholar: Rodopi, pp. 317–330.
Smith, Nicholas. 2003 CrossRef | Google Scholara. ‘Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English.’ In: Facchinetti et al., pp. 241–266.
Smith, Nicholas. 2003b. ‘A quirky progressive? A corpus-based exploration of the will + be + -ing construction in recent and present-day English.’ In: Archer, Dawn, Rayson, Paul and Wilson, Andrew (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 conference. Lancaster University: UCREL Technical Papers 16 Google Scholar, pp. 714–723.
Smith, Nicholas. 2005. A Corpus-Based Investigation of Recent Change in the Use of the Progressive in British English Google Scholar. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.
Smith, Nicholas and Rayson, Paul. 2007. ‘Recent change and variation in the British English use of the progressive passive.’ ICAME Journal 31 Google Scholar, 129–159.
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in 19th-Century English: A Process of Integration. Amsterdam and New York Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Stein, Gabriele. 1991. ‘The phrasal verb type “to have a look” in Modern English.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics 29 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 1–29.
Stein, Gabriele and Quirk, Randolph. 1991. ‘On having a look in a corpus.’ In: Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, London Google Scholar: Longman, pp. 197–203.
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London Google Scholar: Routledge.
Strang, Barbara. 1982. ‘Some aspects of the history of the be+ing construction.’ In: Anderson, John (ed.). Language Form and Linguistic Variation. Papers Dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam and Philadelphia CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 427–474.
Strunk, William and White, E. B.. 3 1979 [1959]. The Elements of Style. New York Google Scholar: Longman.
Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell.
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. ‘Texts, corpora and problems of interpretation: A response to Widdowson.’ Applied Linguistics 22 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 149–172.
Sussex, Roland. 1982. ‘A note on the get-passive construction.’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 2 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 83–92.
Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague and Paris Google Scholar: Mouton.
Svartvik, Jan and Quirk, Randolph (eds.). 1980. A Corpus of English Conversation. (Lund Studies in English, Volume 56). Lund Google Scholar: C. W. K. Gleerup.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. ‘Be going to vs. will/ shall: Does syntax matter?’ Journal of English Linguistics 31 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 295–323.
Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi. 2000. ‘Conventions of professional writing: The medical case report in a historical perspective.’ Journal of English Linguistics 28 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 60–76.
Taeymans, Martine. 2004. ‘An investigation into the marginal modals dare and need in British present-day English.’ In: Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.). Up and Down the Cline. The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins, pp. 97–114.
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2004. ‘Have to, gotta, must? Grammaticalisation, variation and specialization in English deontic modality.’ In: Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian Google Scholar (eds.), pp. 33–55.
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam CrossRef | Google Scholar: Benjamins.
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in Speech and Writing. A Study in Variation. San Diego Google Scholar: Academic Press.
Tottie, Gunnel. 2002. An Introduction to American English. Oxford Google Scholar: Blackwell.
Tottie, Gunnel. 2009. ‘How different are American and British English grammar? And how are they different?’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–363.
Tottie, Gunnel and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. ‘Tag Questions in British and American English.’ Journal of English Linguistics 34 CrossRef | Google Scholar(4), 283–311.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York Google Scholar: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. ‘On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic changes.’ Language 65 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 31–55.
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. ‘Subjectification in grammaticalisation.’ In: Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge CrossRef | Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.
Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean. 4 2002 [1982]. International English. A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London Google Scholar: Arnold.
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu and Wischer, Ilse. 2002. ‘Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English.’ English Language and Linguistics 6 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 1–15.
Turner, John F. 1980. ‘The marked subjunctive in contemporary English.’ Studia Neophilologica 52 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 271–277.
Urdang, Laurence. 1991. ‘“If I were a king…” I'd be in a subjunctive mood.’ Verbatim 17 Google Scholar, 12–14.
Ure, J. M. 1971. ‘Lexical density and register differentiation.’ In: Perren, G. E. and Trim, J. L. M. (eds.). Applications of Linguistics. Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 443–452.
Váradi, Tamás. 2001. ‘The linguistic relevance of corpus linguistics.’ In: Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew and Khoja, Shereen (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference. Lancaster University: UCREL Technical Papers 13 Google Scholar, pp. 587–593.
Pérez, Varela, Ramón, José. 2007. ‘Negation of main verb have: Evidence of a change in progress in spoken and written British English.’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108 Google Scholar, 223–246.
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden Google Scholar: E. J. Brill.
Vosberg, Uwe. 2003a. ‘Cognitive complexity and the establishment of -ing constructions with retrospective verbs in Modern English.’ In: Dossena, Marina and Jones, Charles (eds.). Insights into Late Modern English. Bern Google Scholar: Peter Lang, pp. 197–220.
Vosberg, Uwe. 2003b. ‘The role of extractions and horror aequi in the evolution of -ing complements in Modern English.’ In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 305–327.
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006a. Die Große Komplementverschiebung. Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen Google Scholar: Narr.
Vosberg, Uwe. 2006b. ‘The Great Complement Shift. Extra-semantic factors determining the evolution of sentential complement variants in Modern English.’ In: English and American Studies in German 2005. (Summaries of Theses and Monographs. A Supplement to Anglia.) Tübingen Google Scholar: Niemeyer, pp. 19–22.
Warner, Anthony. 1995. ‘Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework.’ Language 71 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 533–557.
Weiner, E. Judith and Labov, William. 1983. ‘Constraints on the agentless passive.’ Journal of Linguistics 19 CrossRef | Google Scholar(1), 29–58.
Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English. Amsterdam Google Scholar: North-Holland.
Westin, Ingrid. 2002. Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam and New York Google Scholar: Rodopi.
Westin, Ingrid and Geisler, Christer. 2002. ‘A multi-dimensional study of diachronic variation in British newspaper editorials.’ ICAME Journal 26 Google Scholar, 115–134.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. ‘Why can you have a drink when you can't *have an eat?’ Language 58 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 753–799.
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and Progressive Aspect in English. Fasano di Puglia Google Scholar: Schena Editore.
Wright, Susan. 1994. ‘The mystery of the modal progressive.’ In: Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin and New York Google Scholar: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 467–485.
Wright, Susan. 1995. ‘Subjectivity and experiential syntax.’ In: Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, Cambridge Google Scholar: Cambridge University Press, pp. 467–485.
Yoshimura, Kimihiro and Taylor, John R.. 2004. ‘What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English.’ English Language and Linguistics 8 CrossRef | Google Scholar(2), 293–321.
Ziegeler, Deborah. 1999. ‘Agentivity and the history of the English progressive.’ Transactions of the Philological Society 97 CrossRef | Google Scholar, 51–101.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 9670 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 19467 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th April 2025. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.