Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:40:19.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language: Vol. II, 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xxi + 703.

Review products

Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language: Vol. II, 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xxi + 703.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2009

Donka Minkova  and
Robert P. Stockwell
Donka Minkova*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Robert P. Stockwell*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
*
Department of EnglishUniversity of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, U.S.A.[email protected]
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, U.S.A.[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , September 1994 , pp. 528 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1988). The status of voiced fricatives in Old English. In Anderson, J. & Mcleod, N. (eds.). 90–113.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. & Jones, C., (eds.) (1974). Historical linguistics. Proceedings of the first international conference on historical linguistics, Edinburgh, 2–7 September 1973. (2 vols.). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. & Mcleod, N. (eds.) (1988). Edinburgh studies in the English language. (Vol. I.) Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
Baugh, A. & Cable, Th. (1993). A history of the English language. (4th ed.) Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, M., Hansen, E. & Nielsen, H. (eds.) (1983). Current topics in English historical linguistics. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1985). The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Eaton, R., Fischer, O. et al. Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, 10–13 04 1985. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45–60.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax. London: Longman Linguistic Library.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66.1. 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. & van der Leek, F. (1983). The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19. 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. & van der Leek, F. (1987). A ‘case’ for the Old English impersonal. In Koopman, W. F., van der Leek, F., Fischer, O. & Eaton, R. (eds.) Explanation and linguistic change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79–120.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1970). A short grammar of Middle English. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar. In Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 108–110.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1974). Targets and syntactic change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, B. H. (1984). The historical implications of the Scandinavian linguistic element in English: a theoretical evaluation. NOWELE 4. 53–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, R. & Auger, J. (1992). Quantitative evidence, qualitative hypercorrection, sociolinguistics variables – and French speakers' 'eadaches with English h/ø. Language and Communication 12. 3/4. 195–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. (Vols. I–VII.) London: Allan & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kristensson, G. (1967). A survey of Middle English dialects 1290–1350: the six northern counties and Lincolnshire. (Lund Studies in English 35.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1974). Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy. In Anderson, J. & Jones, C. (eds.), vol. II. 311–352.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). The shape of English. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1994). Old English: a historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnert, M. (1953). Sprachfonn und Sprachfunktion im Ormulum. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1993). Splitting the mora. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 83, 02 1993. 9–19.Google Scholar
McIntosh, A., Samuels, M. L., Benskin, M. with assistance of Laing, M. & Williamson, K. (1986). A linguistic atlas of Late Medieval English. (4 vols.) Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1983). On the sociolinguistic history of /h/-dropping in English. In Davenport, M.Hansen, E. E. & Nielsen, H. (eds.). 37–53.Google Scholar
Minkova, D. & Stockwell, R. (1991). Early Modern English vowels: more O'Lass Diachwnica 7.2. 199–215.Google Scholar
Minkova, D. & Stockwell, R. (1994). Syllable weight, prosody, and meter in Old English Diachronica 11.1. 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, S., Meech, S. B. & Whitehall, H. (1935). Middle English dialect characteristics and dialect boundaries. Essays and studies in English and comparative literature. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press. 1–60.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. (1952/1968). A handbook of Middle English. Transl. by. Walker, J. A.. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8. 305–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. (1977). Motivations for exbraciation in Old English. In Li, Ch. (ed.) Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press. 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. & Minkova, D. (1994). Review of CHEL I. Journal of Linguistics 30. 515–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. & Minkova, D. (1991). Subordination and word order change in the history of English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.) Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton. 367–408.Google Scholar
Tajima, M. (1975). The Gawain-poet's use of CON as a periphrastic auxiliary. NM 76. 429–438.Google Scholar
Terasawa, T. (1974). Some notes on the Middle English ‘gan’ periphrasis. Poetica (Tokyo) 1. 89–105.Google Scholar
Trnka, B. (1959). A phonemic aspect of the Great Vowel Shift. In Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie. Paris: Didier. 440–443.Google Scholar
Wright, J. & Wright, E. M. (1923). An elementary Middle English grammar. (2nd edn.) Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar