Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:22:24.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the origin of auxiliary do

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Andrew Garrett
Andrew Garrett
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prevailing theories link the English periphrastic auxiliary verb do historically with Old and Middle English causative do. I argue that these and other accounts are inconsistent with modern dialect evidence and an analysis of the historical record suggested by that evidence. The primary source of periphrastic do was a habitual aspect marker which itself arose from the reinterpretation of bare object nominalizations as infinitive verbs.1

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1998 , pp. 283 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

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

References

Allen, C. (1997). Middle English case loss and the ‘creolization’ hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 1: 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R. (1984). King Horn: an edition based on Cambridge University Library MS Gg. 4.27 (2). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1970a). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 169–86.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1970b). Problems of polarity in counterfactuals. In Sadock, J. M. & Vanek, A. L. (eds.), Studies presented to Robert B. Lees by his students. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 1–15.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, A. (1990). Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Barnes, W. (1863). A grammar and glossary of the Dorset dialect. (Transactions of the Philological Society.) Berlin: Asher.Google Scholar
Barnes, W. (1886). A glossary of the Dorset dialect with a grammar. 1970 reprint (‘2nd edn’). St Peter Port, Guernsey: Stevens-Cox.Google Scholar
Barnes, W. (1962). Poems. Jones, B. (ed.). 2 vols. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Barry, M. V. (1982). The English language in Ireland. In Bailey, R. W. & Görlach, M. (eds.), English as a world language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 84–133.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1924). Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band II: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen, Adverbium., B.Verbum., C.Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Belfour, A. O. (1909). Twelfth-century homilies in MS. Bodley 343. (Early English Text Society, Original Series, 137.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. (1972). Languages in contact: some problems of Hiberno-English. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 72C: 63–82.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. (1979). Spoken English in Ireland, 1600–1740. Dublin: Dolmen Press.Google Scholar
Borkin, A. (1971). Polarity items in questions. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16–18, 1971. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 53–62.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1998). Aspectuality and countability: a cross-categorial analogy. English Language and Linguistics 2: 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. et al. (1986–). Dictionary of Old English. [Microfiche.] Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). Old English grammar. Corrected reprint (1962). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chantraine, P. (1979). La formation des noms en grec ancien. Nouveau tirage. (Société de Linguistique de Paris, Collection linguistique, 38.) Paris: C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. (1985). The Indo-European origins and Latin development of the accusative with infinitive construction. In Tourater, Chr. (ed.), Syntaxe et latin: actes du IIème congrès international de linguistique latine. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence. 307–41.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Corrected reprint (1981). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, L. (1994). De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief- constructie. Forum der Letteren 35: 282–94.Google Scholar
Curry, M. J. (1992) The do variant field in questions and negatives: Jane Austen's Complete Letters and Mansfield Park. In Rissanen, M. et al. (eds.), History of Englishes: new methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 705–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In Rescher, N. (ed.), The logic of decision and action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 81–95.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1985). Adverbs of action. In Vermazen, B. & Hintikka, M. B. (eds.), Essays on Davidson: actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 230–41.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1986). The manifold interpretation of generic sentences. Lingua 68: 149–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (1985). The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, R., Fischer, O., Koopman, W. & van der Leek, F. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 45–60.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax: verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1988). A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. In Chierchia, G., Partee, B. H. & Turner, R. (eds.), Properties, types and meanings, Vol.2. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 39.) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 69–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary do: the establishment and regulation of its use in English. (Gothenburg Studies in English, 2.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elworthy, F. T. (1875). The dialect of West Somerset. (English Dialect Society, Series D, Miscellaneous, 7.) London: Trübner. ‘Separate printing from Transactions of the Philological Society 1875–1876: 197–272.[Google Scholar
Elworthy, F. T. (1877). An outline of the grammar of the dialect of West Somerset. (English Dialect Society, Series D, Miscellaneous, 19.) London: Trübner. [Separate printing of ‘The grammar of the dialect of West Somerset’, Transactions of the Philological Society 1877–1878–1879: 143–257.]Google Scholar
Engblom, V. (1938). On the origin and early development of the auxiliary do. (Lund Studies in English, 6.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Erben, J. (1969). ‘Tun’ als Hilfsverb im heutigen Deutsch. In Engel, U., Grebe, P. & Rupp, H. (eds.), Festschrift für Hugo Moser. Dusseldorf: Schwann. 46–52.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, T. (1996). Functional categories, cliticization, and verb movement in the early Germanic languages. In Thráinsson, H., Epstein, S. D. & Peter, S. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 109–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fife, J. (1986). The semantics of gwneud inversions. Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 33: 133–44.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. (1997). Cross-dialectal parallels and language contacts: evidence from Celtic Englishes. In Hickey, R. & Puppey, S. (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: a festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, Vol.1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 943–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. (1976). Dialects in the south-west of England: a lexical investigation. (Cooper Monographs on English and American Language and Literature, English Dialect Series, 25.) Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), 1066–1476. (Cambridge History of the English Language, 2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–408.Google Scholar
Gachelin, J.-M. (1987). William Barnes and the Dorset dialect. (Thomas Hardy Year Book, 15.) St Samson, Guernsey: Toucan Press.Google Scholar
Gachelin, J.-M. (1991). Transitivity and intransitivity in the dialects of South-West England. In Trudgill & Chambers, 1991: 218–28.Google Scholar
Grimme, H. (1922). Plattdeutsche Mundarten. 2nd edn.Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hall, J. (1901). King Horn: a Middle-English romance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1984). Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20: 303–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1986). Expanding the superstrate: habitual aspect markers in Atlantic Englishes. English World-Wide 7: 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, P. L. (1957). An Anglo-Irish dialect of North Roscommon. Dublin: Department of English, University College, Dublin.Google Scholar
Henry, P. L. (1958). A linguistic survey of Ireland: preliminary report. Lochlann 1: 49–208. (Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, Suppl. Bind.) Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Henry, V. (1900). Le dialecte alaman de Colmar (Haute-Alsace) en 1870: grammaire et lexique. (Université de Paris, Bibliothèque de la Faculté des lettres, 11.) Paris: Germer Baillière.Google Scholar
Heritage, S. J. (1879). The English Charlemagne romances. Part I: Sir Ferumbas. (Early English Text Society, Extra Series, 34.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1992a). The intransitive infinitive of S.W. dialects: a simple generalization. Unpublished MS, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1992b). Vicarious do and the auxiliary. Paper presented at the 2nd Diachronic Generative Syntax Workshop, Philadelphia, 7 November 1992.Google Scholar
Hinderling, R. (1967). Studien zu den starken Verbalabstrakta des Germanischen. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Volker, Neue Folge, 24 [148].) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, I. (1988), 1989. Pidgins and creoles. 2vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holthausen, F. (1888). Vices and virtues. Part I: Text and translation. (Early English Text Society, Original Series, 89.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60: 703–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1997). The rise of auxiliary do: verb-non-raising or category-strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, O. (1976/1991). Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77: 608–22. [Revised and reprinted in Trudgill & Chambers (1991: 148–60).]Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927), 1931, 1940. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax (second volume). Part IV: Syntax (third volume). Part V: Syntax (fourth volume). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. (1986). The co-occurrence of do and be in Hiberno-English. In Harris, J., Little, D. & Singleton, D. (eds.), Perspectives on the English language in Ireland: proceedings of the First Symposium on Hiberno-English. Dublin: Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin. 133–47.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. L. (1989). Tense and aspect categories in Hiberno-English. English World-Wide 10: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, G. & Donaldson, E. T. (eds.) (1988). Piers Plowman: the B Version. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1968). Old English deverbal substantives derived by means of a zero morpheme. Dissertation, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1985). Deverbal nouns in Old and Modern English: from stem-formation to word-formation. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical semantics: historical word-formation. Berlin: Mouton. 221–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (ed.) (1991). Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keseling, G. (1968). Periphrastische Verbformen im Niederdeutschen. Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 91: 139–51.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1995). Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, A. & Roberts, I. (ed.), Clause structure and language change. New York: Oxford University Press. 140–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1998). Partitive case and aspect. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, CA: Centre for the Study of Language and Information. 265–307.Google Scholar
Klemola, J. (1994). Periphrastic DO in south-western dialects of British English: a reassessment. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 2: 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (1993). Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krahe, H., and Meid, W. (1967). Germanische Sprachwissenschaft, Vol.3: Wortbildungslehre. Berlin: Sammlung Göschen.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, I. A. & Szabolcsi, A. (eds.), Lexical matters. (CSLI Lecture Notes, 24.) Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. 29–53.Google Scholar
Krifka, M, Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G. & Chierchia, G. (1995). Genericity: an introduction. In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The generic book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1–124.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English: periphrastic do. In Fasold, R. W. & Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 133–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1990). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Journal of Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1997). Comments on ‘syntax shindig’ papers. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurath, H. et al. (1954–). Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1996). Negation and polarity items. In Shalom, Lappin (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 321–41.Google Scholar
Lee, D. W. (1948). Functional change in early English. Menasha, WI: Banta.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linebarger, M. C. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. (1925). Wanted - a wife. Dialect poems and a play. (Somerset Folk Series, 23.) London: Folk Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1982). Adverbs and logical form. Language 58: 144–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. (1890). The Old English version of Bede's ecclesiastical history of the English people. Part I, 1. (Early English Text Society, Original Series, 95.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Minkova, D. (1991). The history of final vowels in English: the sound of muting. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax. 2vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, N. (1885). The book of the foundation of St Bartholomew's Church in London. (Early English Text Society, Original Series, 163.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morice, A. G. (1932). The Carrier language, Vol.2. (Anthropos Linguistische Bibliothek, 10.) Mödlung bei Wien, St Gabriel, Austria: Verlag der internationalen Zeitschrift ‘Anthropos’.Google Scholar
Murray, J. A. H. et al. (1989). The Oxford English dictionary. 2nd edn prepared by Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, E. S. C.. 20vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). A Middle English syntax, vol. I: Parts of speech. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 23.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nagel, F. (1909). Der Dativ in der frühmittelenglischen Prosa mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Synthese und Analyse. Greifswald: Hans Adler.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. (1991). Motivated archaism: the use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In Kastovsky, 1991: 303–20.Google Scholar
Ó Siadhail, M. (1989). Modern Irish: grammatical structure and dialectal variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, H. & Wakelin, M. F. (1968). Survey of English dialects (B): the basic material, Vol. 4: The Southern counties. Part III. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poussa, P. (1990). A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do, with special consideration of Old English-Celtic contact. In Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N. & Wright, S. (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 407–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preusler, W. (1938), 1939. Keltischer Einfluß im Englischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 56: 178–91; 57: 140–1.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reed, D. W. (1950). The history of inflectional n in English verbs before 1500. (University of California Publications in English, 7, 4.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, K. L. (1981). Ponapean reference grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehg, K. L. & Sohl, D. G. (1979). Ponapean-English dictionary. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R. (1986). Social contact and linguistic diffusion: Hiberno-English and New World Black English. Language 62: 245–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1985). Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in Early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18: 163–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. (1991). Spoken language and history of the do- periphrasis. In Kastovsky, 1991: 321–42.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (1993). Verbs and diachronic syntax: a comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). Act. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of natural language. 2nd edn.Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 70–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon Evans, D. (1964). A grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Smithers, G. V. (1987). Havelok. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, D. (1990). The semantics of syntactic change: aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, D. (1991). Semantic aspects of syntactic change. In Kastovsky, 1991: 355–66.Google Scholar
Stein, D. (1992). Do and tun: a semantics and varieties based approach to syntactic change. In Gerritsen, M. & Stein, D. (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 131–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweet, H. (1871). King Alfred's West-Saxon version of Gregory's Pastoral Care. Part I. (Early English Text Society, Original Series, 45.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thiemke, H. (1919). Die me. Thomas Beket-Legende des Gloucesterlegendars, kritisch herausgegeben mit Einleitung. (Palaestra, 131.) Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1987a). The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century English: a sociohistorical-linguistic approach. (Geschiedenis van de Taalkunde, 6.) Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1987b). Negative do in eighteenth-century English: the power of prestige. In Bunt, G. H. V., Kooper, E. S., Mackenzie, J. L. & Wilkinson, D. R. M. (eds.), One hundred years of English studies in Dutch universities. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1988). Dr Johnson and the auxiliary do. Hiroshima Studies in English Language and Literature 33: 22–49.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1990). The origin and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: a case of destigmatisation. orth-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 16: 3–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1997). Any or no: functional spread of non-assertive any. In Hickey, R. & Puppel, S. (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: a festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1545–54.Google Scholar
Todd, L. (1984). By their tongue divided: towards an analysis of speech communities in Northern Ireland. English World-Wide 5: 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1972). A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. & Chambers, J. K. (eds.) (1991). Dialects of English: studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Tschinkel, H. (1908). Grammatik der Gottscheer Mundart. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
van der Wurff, W. (1992). Syntactic variability, borrowing, and innovation. Diachronica 9: 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963–73). An historical syntax of the English language. 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wakelin, M. F. (1972). English dialects: an introduction. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Wakelin, M. F. (1986). The southwest of England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. R. (1992). Elliptical and impersonal constructions: evidence for auxiliaries in Old English? In Colman, F. (ed.), Evidence for Old English: material and theoretical bases for reconstruction. (Edinburgh Studies in the English Language, 2.) Edinburgh: John Donald. 178–210.Google Scholar
Warner, A. R. (1993). English auxiliaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, E. (1956). Tun. Machen. Bezeichnungen für die kausative und die periphrastische Funktion im Deutschen bis um 1400. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholmer Germanistische Forschungen, 1.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Williams, J. P. (1988). The development of aspectual markers in Anglo-Caribbean English. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 3: 245–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. J. (1980). A Welsh grammar. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Wright, J. (1898–1905). English dialect dictionary. London: Frowde.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1989a). Discourse, style, and the rise of periphrastic do in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 71–91.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1989b). On the stylistic basis of syntactic change. Folia Linguistica Historica 10: 93–115. [Reprinted in Kastovsky 1991: 469–91.]Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1994). The critic and the grammarians: Joseph Addison and the prescriptivists. In Stein, D. & Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (eds.), Towards a standard English, 1600–1800. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 243–84.Google Scholar