Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:31:23.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Principles of diachronic syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

A. R. Warner
A. R. Warner
Affiliation:
Department of Language, University of York
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
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 187 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Aitchison, J. (1980). Review of Principles of diachronic syntax by Lightfoot, D.Linguistics 18. 137–146.Google Scholar
Aitken, A., McIntosh, A. & Pálsson, H. (eds) (1971). Edinburgh studies in English and Scots. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bock, H. (1931). Studien zum präpositionalen infinitiv und Akkusativ mit dem to-lnfinitiv. Anglia 55. 114–249.Google Scholar
Bosworth, J. & Northcote, Toller T. (1898, 1921). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and with a supplement by Toller, T. Northcote. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. (1965). Altenglische Grammatik nach der angelsächsischen Grammatik von Eduard Sievers. 3rd edn.Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Butler, M. C. (1976). The reanalysis of Middle English impersonal constructions and the characterisation of ‘subject of a sentence’. Texas Linguistic Forum 4. 1–19.Google Scholar
Butler, M. C. (1977). Reanalysis of object as subject in Middle English impersonal constructions. Glossa 11. 155–70.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, A. (1976). A diachronic treatment of English quantifiers. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 7. 41–72.Google Scholar
Carlson, A. (1978). A diachronic treatment of English quantifiers. Lingua 46. 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1977). On the gradual nature of syntactic change. In Li (1977), 3–55.Google Scholar
Ekwall, E. (1942–1943). Studies on the genitive of groups in English. Bulletin de Ia société royale des lettres de Lund. Lund. 1–104.Google Scholar
Ellegárd, A. (1953). The auxiliary Do: the establishment and regulation of its use in English. (Gothenburg Studies in English 2.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. (1940). On the development of the structural use of word-order in Modern English. Lg 16. 199–208.Google Scholar
Gaaf, W. van der (1904). The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Anglistische Forschungen 14, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1971). The sentence in written English: a syntactic study based on an analysis of scientfic texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1974). Further remarkson the analysis of auxiliaries as main verbs. FL 11. 215–229.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1980). Criteria for auxiliaries and modals. In Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (eds). Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 65–78.Google Scholar
Jack, G. (1978). ‘Rome's destruction’ and the history of English. JL 14. 311–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Lg 51. 639–71.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1928–1949). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Published and reprinted in London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, W. (ed), A survey of linguistic science. College Park, Maryland: Linguistics Program. University of Maryland. 577–649.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.) (1977). Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1974). The diachronic analysis of English modals. In Anderson, J. & Jones, C. (eds). Historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Vol. 1, 219–249.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1980). The history of NP movement. In Hoekstra, T., van, der Hulst H. & Moortgat, M. (eds.) Lexical grammar. (Publications in language sciences 3.) Dordrecht: Fans publications. 255–284.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. (1975). The category status of English modals. FL 12. 597–601.Google Scholar
MED: Middle English Dictionary, Kurath, H. & Kuhn, S. (eds.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1954Google Scholar
Mossé, F. (1952). A handbook of Middle English, translated by Walker, J.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. (1960). A Middle English syntax: Part I, Parts of speech. (Mémoires de la société néophilologique de Helsinki 23.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
OED: The Oxford English dictionary. Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A. & Onions, C. T. (eds). Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1933.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. (1966). The Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Wilson, D. (1977). Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Lg 53. 741–788.Google Scholar
Reed, D. W. (1950). The history of inflectional n in English verbs before 1500. (University of California publications in English vol. 7 no. 4.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reiner, E. (1968). La place de l'adjectjf épithéte en Français. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller. Universitäts-Verlagsbuchhandlung Gmbh.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Todd, W. (ed), Studies in philosophical linguistics 1. Evanston: Great Expectations Press. 77–102.Google Scholar
Salmon, V. (1965). Sentence structures in colloquial Shakespearian English. TPS 105–140.Google Scholar
Tatlock, J. and Kennedy, A. (1927). A concordance to The complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer and to The romaunt of the rose. Washington: The Carnegie Institute of Washington.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. (1971). The grammar of jealousy: a note on the character of Leontes. In Aitken, Mcintosh & Pálsson, 55–65.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1946–1956). A syntax of the English language of St. Thomas More. The verb. (Materials for the study of the old English drama 19, 24, 26.) Louvain: Uystpruyst.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. (1890). Stellung des auributiven Adjektivs in altfranzösischen Prosatexten von Anfang des XIII. bis Anfang des XV. Jahrhunderts, I. Griefswald diss.Google Scholar
Warner, A. (1982). Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. London: Croom Helm and University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar