Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:48:47.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Support for end-weight as a determinant of linguistic variation and change1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

MATTHIAS EITELMANN
MATTHIAS EITELMANN*
Affiliation:
Department of English and Linguistics, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Jakob Welder-Weg 18, 55128 Mainz, Germany [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The term end-weight refers to the tendency for bulkier constituents to occur at the end of sentences. While end-weight has occasionally been analysed as a more general short-before-long principle in the sense of Behaghel's (1909–10) Law of Growing Constituents, the operation of end-weight in absolute sentence-final position has until recently lacked empirical verification. This article shows that end-weight effects can be observed in grammatical variation contexts in which language users have a choice between variants that differ in terms of length and degree of explicitness. Using two variation phenomena as a testing ground, we empirically investigate the hypothesis that the more explicit and hence bulkier variant occurs preferably in final position. The first variation context concerns semi-reflexive verbs that can take either an explicit self-pronoun or a zero variant. It turns out that the rapid decline of the self-pronoun is delayed in end position. The second case study focuses on Early Modern English affirmative declarative clauses, which may alternate between finite verb forms or do-supported ones. This study reveals that do-support is favoured in end position. These findings ultimately contribute to an empirical validation of end-weight, the implications of which are discussed against the backdrop of processing-related support strategies.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 395 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

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

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for giving me valuable feedback and further literature recommendations.

References

Sources

British National Corpus (BNC) 1995. BNC Consortium/Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Early English Prose Fiction . 1997. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
Eighteenth-Century Fiction . 1996. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
Nineteenth-Century Fiction . 1999–2000. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
The Guardian (including The Observer 1994–7) on CD-ROM 1990–7. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
The Los Angeles Times on CD-ROM 1992–5. [1992-3: Dialog OnDisc. Dialog Information Services, Inc.; 1994–95: Knight-Ridder Information, Inc.]Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Gingstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.Google Scholar
Bækken, Bjørg. 2002. yet this follie doth many times assault the brauest minds: Affirmative declarative do in 17th-century English Nordic Journal of English Studies 1 (2), 317–37.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909–10. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanistische Forschungen 25, 110–42.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1971. The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Bever, Thomas G., Katz, Jerrold J. & Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability, 65–88. Hassocks: Harvester.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. http://web.stanford.edu/~bresnan/new-dative.pdf (7 June 2016).Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus. 2007. Extending the scope of inquiry in interlanguage pragmatics: the case of focus constructions. In Kraft, Bettina & Geluykens, Ronald (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage English, 73–90. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1988. On the principle of weight in English. In Duncan-Rose, Caroline & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), On language: Rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica. A festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his friends and colleagues, 325–39. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization, a study in universal syntax. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Dell, Gary S.. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40, 296–340.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. 2010. Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics 21 (1), 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Elaine & Michaelis, Laura A.. 2014. Why move? How weight and discourse factors combine to predict relative clause extraposition in English. In Moravcsik, Edith, Malchokov, Andrej & MacWhinney, Brian (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 70–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 (1), 1–76.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2007. Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 87–107.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & 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
Hirotani, Masako, Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith. 2006. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 425–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Eiko. 1998. Reflexive verbs in Chaucer. In Fisiak, Jacek & Oizumi, Akio (eds.), English historical linguistics and philology in Japan, 55–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Carpenter, Patricia A.. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87 (4), 329–54.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2000. It-extraposition and non-extraposition in English discourse. In Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 157–75. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Gustav. 1951. A special case of the object of result. English Studies 32, 153–9.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehart & Siemund, Peter. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17, 39–84.Google Scholar
Krebs, Anna-Lena. 2011. Differently vs in a different way: A synchronic and diachronic study of end-weight as a factor determining synthetic or analytic adverbial formation. Unpublished thesis, Mainz University, Germany.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do . In Fasold, Ralph W. & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language change and variation, 132–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. [1982]1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich and Newcastle upon Tyne: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1990. Infinitival complement clauses in English: A study of syntax in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. Motivated archaism: Affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 303–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. An introduction to Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. The development of reflexive strategies in English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja & Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.). English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles, 277–370. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 1999. Historical English syntax: A statistical corpus-based study on the organisation of Early Modern English sentences. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Pinker, Stephen. 1994. The language instinct. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nurmi, Arja. 1997. Dummies on the move: Prop-one and affirmative do in the 17th century. In Nevalainen, Terrtu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honor of Matti Rissanen, 395–417. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124 (3), 372–422.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1985. Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in Early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18, 163–83.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–182.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Reflexive structures. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 166–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohr, Anny. 1929. Die Steigerung des neuenglischen Eigenschaftswortes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert mit Ausblicken auf den Sprachgebrauch der Gegenwart. PhD thesis, University of Gießen.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shaozeng, Ren. 1994. Culture, discourse, choice of structure. In Alatis, James E. (ed.), Educational linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence, 150–72. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 1999. The change of government of commit ‘pledge/bind oneself’. American Speech 74, 333–6.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark. 2004. Light and heavy reflexives. Linguistics 42, 573–615.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change. Aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Theodorus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. I. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2006. Variation and the interpretation of periphrastic do . In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 45–67. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2012. Early Modern English: periphrastic do . In Bergs, Alexander & Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English historical linguistics, vol. 1, 743–56. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 34.1. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997a. End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (3), 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997b. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer. 2000. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation, 119–54. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Lohmann, Arne. 2013. Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering. Language Variation and Change 25 (1), 65–88.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2008. What makes a syntactic change stop? On the decline of periphrastic do in Early Modern English affirmative declarative sentences. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44, 139–54.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony & Gingstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.Google Scholar
Bækken, Bjørg. 2002. yet this follie doth many times assault the brauest minds: Affirmative declarative do in 17th-century English Nordic Journal of English Studies 1 (2), 317–37.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909–10. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanistische Forschungen 25, 110–42.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1971. The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In Bever, Thomas G., Katz, Jerrold J. & Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.), An integrated theory of linguistic ability, 65–88. Hassocks: Harvester.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. http://web.stanford.edu/~bresnan/new-dative.pdf (7 June 2016).Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus. 2007. Extending the scope of inquiry in interlanguage pragmatics: the case of focus constructions. In Kraft, Bettina & Geluykens, Ronald (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage English, 73–90. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1988. On the principle of weight in English. In Duncan-Rose, Caroline & Vennemann, Theo (eds.), On language: Rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica. A festschrift for Robert P. Stockwell from his friends and colleagues, 325–39. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization, a study in universal syntax. New York and London: Garland.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Dell, Gary S.. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40, 296–340.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. 2010. Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics 21 (1), 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Elaine & Michaelis, Laura A.. 2014. Why move? How weight and discourse factors combine to predict relative clause extraposition in English. In Moravcsik, Edith, Malchokov, Andrej & MacWhinney, Brian (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 70–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 (1), 1–76.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2007. Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 87–107.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & 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
Hirotani, Masako, Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith. 2006. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 425–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Eiko. 1998. Reflexive verbs in Chaucer. In Fisiak, Jacek & Oizumi, Akio (eds.), English historical linguistics and philology in Japan, 55–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, Marcel A. & Carpenter, Patricia A.. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87 (4), 329–54.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2000. It-extraposition and non-extraposition in English discourse. In Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 157–75. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Gustav. 1951. A special case of the object of result. English Studies 32, 153–9.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehart & Siemund, Peter. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17, 39–84.Google Scholar
Krebs, Anna-Lena. 2011. Differently vs in a different way: A synchronic and diachronic study of end-weight as a factor determining synthetic or analytic adverbial formation. Unpublished thesis, Mainz University, Germany.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do . In Fasold, Ralph W. & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language change and variation, 132–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. [1982]1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich and Newcastle upon Tyne: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1990. Infinitival complement clauses in English: A study of syntax in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. Motivated archaism: Affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Historical English syntax, 303–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. An introduction to Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. The development of reflexive strategies in English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja & Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.). English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles, 277–370. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 1999. Historical English syntax: A statistical corpus-based study on the organisation of Early Modern English sentences. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Pinker, Stephen. 1994. The language instinct. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nurmi, Arja. 1997. Dummies on the move: Prop-one and affirmative do in the 17th century. In Nevalainen, Terrtu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honor of Matti Rissanen, 395–417. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124 (3), 372–422.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1985. Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in Early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18, 163–83.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–182.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Reflexive structures. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 166–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohr, Anny. 1929. Die Steigerung des neuenglischen Eigenschaftswortes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert mit Ausblicken auf den Sprachgebrauch der Gegenwart. PhD thesis, University of Gießen.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shaozeng, Ren. 1994. Culture, discourse, choice of structure. In Alatis, James E. (ed.), Educational linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence, 150–72. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 1999. The change of government of commit ‘pledge/bind oneself’. American Speech 74, 333–6.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark. 2004. Light and heavy reflexives. Linguistics 42, 573–615.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change. Aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Theodorus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. I. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2006. Variation and the interpretation of periphrastic do . In van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 45–67. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2012. Early Modern English: periphrastic do . In Bergs, Alexander & Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English historical linguistics, vol. 1, 743–56. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 34.1. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997a. End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (3), 347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997b. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer. 2000. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation, 119–54. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Lohmann, Arne. 2013. Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering. Language Variation and Change 25 (1), 65–88.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2008. What makes a syntactic change stop? On the decline of periphrastic do in Early Modern English affirmative declarative sentences. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44, 139–54.Google Scholar