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
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:52:19.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2019

Edited by
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza ,
Emma Moore ,
Linda van Bergen  and
Willem B. Hollmann
Nuria Yáñez-Bouza
Affiliation:
Universidade de Vigo, Spain
Emma Moore
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Linda van Bergen
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Willem B. Hollmann
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Get access

Summary

A summary 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
Chapter
Information
Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax , pp. 366 - 398
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Aarts, Bas 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackles, Nancy M. 1997. Historical syntax of the English articles in relation to the count/non-count distinction. PhD thesis: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia 1998. The code as context: Language-change and (mis)interpretation. In Malmkjær, Kirsten and Williams, John (eds.) Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–68.Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia 1999. Literary language. In Lass, Roger (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. III 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 539–653.Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia 2007. Prescribed reading: Pronouns and gender in the eighteenth century. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 7. Available at: www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/Adamson.htm.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1985. The semantic development of will. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Semantics – Historical Word-Formation. Berlin: Mouton Publishers, pp. 11–21.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.) Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aitchison, Jean 1981. Language Change: Progress or Decay? [London:] Fontana Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Algeo, John 2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 375–409.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 2007. Variation in the NP/DP in Old English: Determiner and possessive combinations. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Manling, Joan, and Manning, Chris (eds.) Architectures, Rules, and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya 1999. What counts as a class? The case of psych verbs. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35: 1–23.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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: Peter Lang, pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita and González-Díaz, Victorina 2005. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism in English: A re-evaluation of its effects on actual language usage. Multilingua 24(4): 317–41.Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ayres, Alfred 1883 [1908]. The English Grammar of William Cobbett. Carefully Revised and Annotated. New York: D. Appleton and Co.Google Scholar
Bailey, Richard W. 2004. American English: Its origins and history. In Finegan, Edward and Rickford, John R. (eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bain, Alexander 1863. An English Grammar. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(4): 679–717.Google Scholar
Baron, Dennis E. 1986. Grammar and Gender. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte, and Gildea, Spike (eds.) 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bate, W. Jackson 1971. The Burden of the Past and the English Poet. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte L. M. 2009. Word order. In Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds.) New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax, Vol. 1 Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 241–316.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2010. Prescriptivism and the suppression of variation. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Nocera, Carmela, and Sturiale, Massimo (eds.) 2008. Perspectives on Prescriptivism. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Beckman, Natanael 1917. Hur uttryckes hos verbet framtid i forn- och nysvenskan? En provföreläsning och en önskelista. Språk och Stil 17: 1–16.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay and Bybee, Joan 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59(1): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–42.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike 2009. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2): 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike 2017. The role of analogy in language processing and acquisition. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra, and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.) The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–39.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(3): 291–352.Google Scholar
Bentz, Christian and Winter, Bodo 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 3(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Berlage, Eva 2014. Noun Phrase Complexity in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne 2004. Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics interface. In Bianchi, Claudia (ed.) The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 101–31.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas 2003. Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis. In Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles (eds.) Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 47–70.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in 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: Société Néophilologique, pp. 253–75.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Birkmann, Thomas 1987. Präteritopräsentia: Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Björkstam, Harald 1919. De modala hjälpverben i svenskan. Lund: H. Ohlssons boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 2006. Divisions of labour: The analysis of parentheticals. Lingua 116(10): 1670–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Harold 1973. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Harold 1975. A Map of Misreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bock, Hellmut 1931. Studien zum präpositionalen Infinitiv und Akkusativ mit dem to-Infinitiv. Anglia 55: 114–249.Google Scholar
Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul 2002. Race and the Rise of Standard American. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti and Vincent, Nigel 2017. Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 642–63.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz, and Scott, Alan 2013a. Expression of possession in English: The significance of the right edge. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, and Scott, Alan (eds.) Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, and Scott, Alan (eds.) 2013b. Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel, and Walkden, George 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 363–82.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper 2001. The force-dynamic core meaning of Danish modal verbs. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 33(1): 19–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Søren 1999. Modal Verbs in Danish. Copenhagen: Reitzel.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6(3): 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. PhD thesis: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published as Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. New York: Garland, 1979.]Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 343–434.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.) Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1): 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida, and Wechsler, Stephen 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. Paper presented at the workshop on ‘The origin and development of verbal periphrases’, 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 10), Amsterdam, 16 August 1991. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/HAVETO.PDF.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: The origin of metalinguistic and politeness functions. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–90.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian 1977 (1st edn.), 1990 (2nd edn.). Listening to Spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Browning, Robert 1846. Luria. In Bells and Pomegranates, Vol. 8: Luria; and a Soul’s Tragedy. London: Edward Moxon, pp. 4–20.Google Scholar
Butler, Charles 1634. English Grammar. Oxford: Printed by William Turner, for the author. (Facsimile reprint, with an introduction by Albert Eichler. Halle: Niemeyer, 1910.)Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Fortmann, Christian, and Rohrer, Christian 1996a. Syntactic analyses for parallel grammars: Auxiliaries and genitive NPs. In COLING-96 Organizing Committee (eds.) COLING-96: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1. Copenhagen: Center for Sprogteknologi, pp. 182–7.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Niño, María-Eugenia, and Segond, Frédérique 1996b. Multilingual processing of auxiliaries within LFG. In Gibbon, Dafydd (ed.) Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, October 1996. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 111–22.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2011. Usage-based theory and grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 49–69.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William, and Perkins, Revere D. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bylin, Maria 2017. Hit och dit i prototypkategorin. Historien om viljas hjälpverbsstatus. In Sköldberg, Emma, Andréasson, Maia, Eryd, Henrietta Adamsson, Lindahl, Filippa, Lindström, Sven, Prentice, Julia, and Sandberg, Malin (eds.) Svenskans beskrivning 35: Förhandlingar vid trettiofemte sammankomsten, Göteborg 11–13 maj 2016. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions SV1-7/2006: 1–28.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace and Danielewicz, Jane 1987. Properties of spoken and written language. In Horowitz, Rosalind and Jay Samuels, S. (eds.) Comprehending Oral and Written Language. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar
CHEL IV = Romaine, Suzanne (ed.) 1998. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–93.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul 1939. The Articles: A Study of Their Theory and Use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 161–84.Google Scholar
Coates, Richard 1987. Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation. Journal of Linguistics 23(2): 319–40.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget 2009. The Semantics of the Future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Craig, 1951: See SHC.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis 2013. Control and the evolution of possessive and existential constructions. In van Gelderen, Elly, Cennamo, Michela, and Barðdal, Jóhanna (eds.) Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 461–76.Google Scholar
Crisma, Paola 2011. The emergence of the definite article in English: A contact-induced change? In Petra Sleeman and Harry Perridon (eds.) The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 175–92.Google Scholar
Croft, William 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.) Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David 1988. Rediscover Grammar with David Crystal. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Crystal, David 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne 2003. Gender Shifts in the History of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne 2014. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne 1979. Contemporary reaction to Rudolf Meringer’s speech error research. Historiographia Linguistica 6(1): 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne 2000. Listening to a second language through the ears of a first. Interpreting 5: 1–23.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne and Fay, David 1978. Introduction. In Meringer, Rudolf and Mayer, Carl (eds.) Versprechen und Verlesen: Eine psychologisch-linguistische Studie, new edition with an introductory article by Anne Cutler and David Fay. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. ix–xl.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert 1999. Historical evidence in prepositional semantics: The case of English by. In Guy, A. J. Tops, Betty Devriendt, and Geukens, Steven (eds.) Thinking English Grammar: To Honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary 2015. Morphology in the LFG architecture. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 64–83. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/20/lfg15.html.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara and Sweetser, Eve 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles 1998. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 3rd edn. with an introduction, afterword and commentaries by Paul Ekman. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Davies, Hugh Sykes 1960. Trollope. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark 2012. Some methodological issues related to corpus-based investigations of recent syntactic changes in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 157–74.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark and Fuchs, Robert 2015. Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide 36(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Day, Samuel B. and Gentner, Dedre 2007. Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition 35(1): 39–49.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119(11): 1728–55.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3): 601–33.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik 2013. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Ghesquière, Lobke, and Van de Velde, Freek (eds.) 2015. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka 2007. Parentheticals: An introduction. In Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds.) Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
DENG = Sundby, Bertil, Bjørge, Anne Kari, and Haugland, Kari E. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar, 1700–1800. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David 1990. The Old English impersonals revived. In Adamson, Sylvia M., Law, Vivien A., Vincent, Nigel, and Wright, Susan (eds.) Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 111–40.Google Scholar
Denison, David 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Denison, David 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 279–304.Google Scholar
Denison, David 2012. Introduction to Part V. In Denison, David, Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris, and Moore, Emma, with the assistance of Miura, Ayumi (eds.) Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–50.Google Scholar
Denison, David and Cort, Alison 2010. Better as a verb. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 349–83.Google Scholar
Denison, David and Hundt, Marianne 2013. Defining relatives. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2): 135–67.Google Scholar
Denison, David and Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Editorial introduction. Transactions of the Philological Society 95(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Denison, David, Scott, Alan K., and Börjars, Kersti 2010. The real distribution of the English ‘group genitive’. Studies in Language 34(3): 532–64.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini 2014. Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. In Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 393–409.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini 2015. Diachronic semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1): 179–97. Available at: www.annualreviews.org/toc/linguistics/1/1.Google Scholar
Dreschler, Gea 2015. Passives and the Loss of Verb Second: A Study of Syntactic and Information-Structural Factors. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Dyvik, Helge 1999. The universality of f-structure: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/LFG4-1999/.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100.Google Scholar
Eddington, David and Silva-Corvalán, Carmen 2011. Variation in the use of deber and deber de in written and oral materials from Latin America and Spain. Spanish in Context 8(2): 257–71.Google Scholar
Ehret, Katharina, Wolk, Christoph, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2014. Quirky quadratures: On rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 263–303.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum 2005. Norwegian Modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. 1921. Tradition and the individual talent. In Eliot, T. S., The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, pp. 47–59.Google Scholar
Ellis, Andrew W. 1980. On the Freudian theory of speech errors. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. San Francisco: Academic Press, pp. 123–31.Google Scholar
Elmer, Willy 1981. Diachronic Grammar: The History of Old and Middle English Subjectless Constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-Preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet 1999. The choice between bli-passive and s-passive in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. NORDSEM Report 3. Available at: www.svenska.gu.se/digitalAssets/1336/1336829_engdahl-nordsem-passivechoice-1999.pdf.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Nicolaeva, Irina (ed.) Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje 2004. The Syntax of Old Norse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Hjalmar and Torp, Alf 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax i historisk fremstilling. Kristiania: Aschehoug and Co.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 1984. The English auxiliary system: A Lexical-Functional analysis. Language 60(3): 483–509.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.) 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fernández de Castro, Félix 1999. Las Perífrasis Verbales en el Español Actual. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward 1998. English grammar and usage. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 536–88.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward 2004. American English and its distinctiveness. In Finegan, Edward and Rickford, John R. (eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 18–38.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward 2006. English in North America. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.) A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 384–419.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1988. The rise of the for NP to V construction: An explanation. In Nixon, Graham and Honey, John (eds.) An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 67–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1989. The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 8(1–2): 143–217.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1990. Syntactic change and causation: Developments in infinitival constructions in English. PhD thesis: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1992. Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter (eds.) Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1994a. The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and infinitive construction in Dutch and English compared. In Swan, Toril, Mørck, Endre, and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.) Language Change and Language Structure: Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 91–133.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1994b. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78(1): 137–64.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 1997. The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English compared with German and Dutch. In Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanisław (eds.) Language History and Linguistic Modelling: A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday, Vol. I Language History. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 265–80.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2011. Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 31–42.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2013. An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization: On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. Studies in Language 37(3): 515–33.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2015. The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of have-to once again. In Toupin, Fabienne and Lowrey, Brian (eds.) Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 120–50.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M. and van der Leek, Frederike C. 1983. The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19(2): 337–68.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem, and van der Wurff, Wim 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne 1982. The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Reilly, Snitzer, and Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.) On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–72.Google Scholar
Frank, Anette and Zaenen, Annie 2002. Tense in LFG: Syntax and morphology. In Kamp, Hans and Reyle, Uwe (eds.) How We Say WHEN It Happens: Contributions to the Theory of Temporal Reference in Natural Language. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 17–52.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund 1914. Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Authorized English edition, with introduction by Brill, A. A.. London: T. Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11): 1752–78.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Camarero, Garachana, Mar 2017. Perífrasis formadas en torno a tener en español: Ser tenudo/tenido ø/a/de + infinitivo, tener a/de + infinitivo, tener que + infinitivo. In Camarero, Mar Garachana (ed.) La Gramática en la Diacronía: La Evolución de las Perífrasis Verbales Modales en Español. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana Vervuert, pp. 229–86.Google Scholar
Garachana Camarero, Mar and Rosemeyer, Malte 2011. Rutinas léxicas en el cambio gramatical. El caso de las perífrasis deónticas e iterativas. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 6: 35–60.Google Scholar
García Fernández, Luis (ed.) 2006. Diccionario de Perífrasis Verbales. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J., and van den Toorn, M. C. 1984. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre 2010. Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems. Cognitive Science 34(5): 752–75.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre and Namy, Laura L. 2006. Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 297–301.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre and Smith, Linsey 2012. Analogical reasoning. In Ramachandran, V. S. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 130–6.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Anggoro, Florencia K., and Klibanoff, Raquel S. 2011. Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development 82(4): 1173–88.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.) The New Comparative Syntax. London/New York: Longman, pp. 95–123.Google Scholar
Godden, M. R. 2003. Review of David W. Porter’s Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric’s Latin-Old English Grammar. Medium Ævum 72(1): 128–30.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo 1999. Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo. In Bosque, Ignacio and Demonte, Violeta (eds.) Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Vol. 2 Las Construcciones Sintácticas Fundamentales. Relaciones Temporales, Aspectuales y Modales. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, pp. 3323–89.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, Bruno, Loureiro-Porto, Lucía, Ramasco, José J., and Sánchez, David 2018. Mapping the Americanization of English in space and time. PLOS ONE 13(5): e0197741. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197741Google Scholar
Gordon, E. V. 1927. An Introduction to Old Norse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–96.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas 2015. Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 2011. Elementary principles of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. In Borsley, Robert D. and Börjars, Kersti (eds.) Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 9–53.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney 1996. Introducing ICE. In Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.) Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.) Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3 Word Structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, Cohen, Walter, Howard, Jean E., and Maus, Katharine Eisaman (eds.) 1997. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Hilpert, Martin 2012. Variability-based Neighbor Clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 134–44.Google Scholar
Grimberg, Carl 1905. Undersökningar om konstruktionen ackusativ med infinitiv i den äldre fornsvenskan. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi XXI: 205–35, 311–57.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob 1837. Deutsche Grammatik, Vol. 4. Göttingen: In der Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982a. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (ed.) 1982b. Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 2001. Interactional sociolinguistics: A personal perspective. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, and Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 215–28.Google Scholar
Hale, William Gardner and Buck, Carl Darling 1966. A Latin Grammar. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1989. From purposive to infinitive – A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10(1/2): 287–310.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22(2): 315–51.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 2013. On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject ‘want’ complements: Economic vs. iconic motivation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 26: 41–69.Google Scholar
Haug, Dag 2013. Partial control and anaphoric control in LFG. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG 2013 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 274–94. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/18/lfg13.html.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Roger 1981. Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17(2): 247–69.Google Scholar
Healey, Antonette diPaolo and Venezky, Richard L. 1980. A Microfiche Concordance to Old English: The List of Texts and Index of Editions. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3): 183–221.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, and Kuteva, Tania 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honoré (eds.) Insubordination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 39–64.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt 2019. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. PhD thesis: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Grafmiller, Jason 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27.Google Scholar
Hellquist, Elof 1902. Studier i 1600-talets svenska. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Hernández Díaz, Axel 2006. Posesión y existencia. La competencia de haber y tener y haber existencial. In Company, Concepción Company (ed.) Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua Española, Primera Parte La Frase Verbal, Vol. 2. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 1053–160.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2008a. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2008b. The English comparative – Language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics 12(3): 395–417.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn (eds.) What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
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(3): 437–74.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Smith, Nicholas, and Waibel, Birgit 2007. The Part-of-Speech-Tagged ‘Brown’ Corpora: A Manual of Information, Including Pointers for Successful Use. Freiburg: Department of English, University of Freiburg. Available at: http://clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/FLOB-Manual-tagged.pdf.Google Scholar
Hinterhuber, Hartmann 2007. Sigmund Freud, Rudolf Meringer and Carl Mayer: Slips of the tongue and mis-readings. The history of a controversy. Neuropsychiatrie 21(4): 291–301.Google Scholar
Hodson, Jane 2006. The problem of Joseph Priestley’s (1733–1804) descriptivism. Historiographia Linguistica 33(1/2): 57–84.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R. 2001. Epilogue: Analogy as the core of cognition. In Gentner, Dedre, Holyoak, Keith J., and Kokinov, Boicho N. (eds.) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 499–538.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas and Sander, Emmanuel 2013. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. (ed.) 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. I The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.) 2006. A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holyoak, Keith J. and Thagard, Paul 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.) Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–99.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt, and Zeileis, Achim 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651–74.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1. (Issue edited by Anneli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi, Annotating Variation and Change.) Available at www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/01/huber/.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19(2): 399–446.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney 2002. The verb. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–212.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2009. Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change? In Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds.) One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Leech, Geoffrey 2012. ‘Small is beautiful’: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175–88.Google Scholar
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(2): 221–42.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2012. Animacy in early New Zealand English. English World-Wide 33(3): 241–63.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David, and Schneider, Gerold 2012a. Retrieving relatives from historical data. Literary and Linguistic Computing 27(1): 3–16.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David, and Schneider, Gerold 2012b. Relative complexity in scientific discourse. English Language and Linguistics 16(2): 209–40.Google Scholar
Hüning, Matthias and Booij, Geert 2014. From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through ‘constructionalization’. Folia Linguistica 48(2): 579–604.Google Scholar
Irwin, Anthea 2010. Social constructionism. In Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, and Kerswill, Paul (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 100–12.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas and Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.) Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1968. English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Jäger, Anne 2013. The emergence of modal meanings from haben with zu-infinitives in Old High German. In Diewald, Gabriele, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, and Wischer, Ilse (eds.) Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages: With a Focus on Verbal Categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 151–68.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2014. On the genitive’s trail: Data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 305–29.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. 2009. Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaworska, Ewa 1986. Prepositional phrases as subjects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 22(2): 355–74.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1940. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V Syntax Fourth Volume. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. In two volumes. London: Printed by W. Strahan.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara 2000. Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julius 1873. Geschichte des Infinitivs im Indogermanischen. München: Theodor Ackermann.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edn. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane/Penguin.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 852–97.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien 2004. Postnominal PP complements and modifiers: A cognitive distinction. English Language and Linguistics 8(2): 323–50.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien 2011. English proforms: An alternative account. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 303–34.Google Scholar
Ker, Neil R. 1957. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran 1985. Help to/help ∅ revisited. English Studies 66(2): 156–61.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, Jurgen 2000. Grammaticalization: Studies in Latin and Romance Morphosyntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, Jurgen 2008. Can grammaticalization be parameterized? In Seoane, Elena and López-Couso, María José (eds.) Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 171–82.Google Scholar
Köhler, Anton 1867. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Infinitivs im Gotischen. Germania 12: 421–62.Google Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas and Mair, Christian 2012. Technologies of communication. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 261–84.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. II Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lagervall, Marika 2014. Modala hjälpverb i språkhistorisk belysning. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger 1994. Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, Phoebe 2015. Semantic change and politeness: A study of verbs of commanding. MSc thesis: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation Paths of Have in English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Carretero, Marta, Hita, Jorge Arús, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.) English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.) Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 181–225.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 2013. A History of Psycholinguistics: The Pre-Chomskyan Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark 2007. WEV. Language Log, 3 August 2007. Available at: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004781.html.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne 2011. Help vs help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 499–521.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo 2004. Grammaticalization of syntactic incompleteness: Free conditionals in Italian and other languages. SKY Journal of Linguistics 17: 189–215.Google Scholar
Longman 1991 = Woolford, John and Karlin, Daniel (eds.) 1991. The Poems of Browning, Vol. II 1841–1846. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José 2007. Adverbial connectives within and beyond adverbial subordination: The history of lest. In Lenker, Ursula and Meurman-Solin, Anneli (eds.) Connectives in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén 2015. Secondary grammaticalization in clause combining: From adverbial subordination to complementation in English. Language Sciences 47(B): 188–98.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou 1999. Infinitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou 2005. The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowth, Robert 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. (Facsimile edition, Alston, R. C. (ed.) English Linguistics 1500–1800. Menston: Scolar Press, 1967.)Google Scholar
Lund, G. F. V. 1862. Oldnordisk Ordföjningslære. København: Berlingske Bogtrykkeri ved L.N. Kalckar.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher 1986. The syntax of English genitive constructions. Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 123–43.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4(226): 1–16.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian 1990. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian 1997. Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of language change in progress. In Ljung, Magnus (ed.) Corpus-Based Studies in English. Papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17), Stockholm, May 15–19, 1996. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
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(1): 105–31.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov 1967. Multiple versus simple causation in linguistic change. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966, Vol. II. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, pp. 1228–46.Google Scholar
Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor and Cukier, Kenneth 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
McEnery, Anthony and Xiao, Zhonghua 2005. HELP or HELP to: What do corpora have to say? English Studies 86(2): 161–87.Google Scholar
McGann, Jerome J. 1983. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprint, with a preface by the author and a foreword by D. C. Greetham, Charlottesville/London: University Press of Virginia, 1992.)Google Scholar
McIntosh, Carey 1998. The Evolution of English Prose, 1700–1800: Style, Politeness, and Print Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menzer, Melinda J. 2004. Ælfric’s English Grammar. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 103(1): 106–24.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Bhatt, Rakesh M. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michael, Ian 1987. The Teaching of English: From the Sixteenth Century to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Aiden, Aviva Presser, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, Joseph P., Hoiberg, Dale, Clancy, Dan, Norvig, Peter, Orwant, Jon, Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A., and Aiden, Erez Lieberman 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014): 176–82.Google Scholar
Milroy, James 1992. A social model for the interpretation of language change. In Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.) History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 72–91.Google Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1985. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1991. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce, Ball, Christopher, and Cameron, Angus 1975. Short titles of Old English texts. Anglo-Saxon England 4: 207–21.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce, Ball, Christopher, and Cameron, Angus 1979. Short titles of Old English texts: Addenda and corrigenda. Anglo-Saxon England 8: 331–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Keith 2003. Had better and might as well: On the margins of modality? In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred, and Palmer, Frank (eds.) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129–49.Google Scholar
Miura, Ayumi 2015. Middle English Verbs of Emotion and Impersonal Constructions: Verb Meaning and Syntax in Diachrony. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Möhlig-Falke, Ruth 2012. The Early English Impersonal Construction: An Analysis of Verbal and Constructional Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Motley, Michael T. 1980. Verification of ‘Freudian slips’ and semantic prearticulatory editing via laboratory-induced spoonerisms. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Errors in Linguistic Performance: Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen, and Hand. San Francisco: Academic Press, pp. 133–47.Google Scholar
Murphy, Raymond 2012. English Grammar in Use: A Self-Study Reference and Practice Book for Intermediate Learners of English, 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2012. Reconstructing syntactic continuity and change in early Modern English regional dialects: The case of who. In Denison, David, Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris, and Moore, Emma, with the assistance of Miura, Ayumi (eds.) Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–84.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1994. Its strength and the beauty of it: The standardization of the third person neuter possessive in Early Modern English. In Stein, Dieter and Ingrid van Ostade, Tieken-Boon (eds.) Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 171–216.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2017. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuijsen, Dorien 2006. Cambios en la colocación de los pronombres átonos. In Company, Concepción Company (ed.) Sintaxis Histórica de la Lengua Española, Primera Parte La Frase Verbal, Vol. 2. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, pp. 1337–404.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk 2001. The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses: Evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood? Studies in Language 25(2): 255–96.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk 2008. The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4): 314–40.Google Scholar
Nygaard, M. 1865. Eddasprogets Syntax, Vol. II. Bergen: Ed. B. Giertsen.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Maling, Joan, and Skarabela, Barbora 2013. Nominal categories and the expression of possession: A cross-linguistic study of probabilistic tendencies and categorical constraints. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, and Scott, Alan (eds.) Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 89–122.Google Scholar
Oga, Kyoko 2001. Two types of ‘of’ and theta-role assignment by nouns. In Akita, Mamiko and Oga, Kyoko (eds.) Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 6. Durham: Department of English and Linguistics, University of Durham, pp. 95–108.Google Scholar
Ogawa, Hiroshi 1989. Old English Modal Verbs: A Syntactical Study. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger.Google Scholar
Ohio 1973 = King, Roma A. Jr. (ed.) 1973. The Complete Works of Robert Browning: With Variant Readings & Annotations, Vol. IV. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella 1998. Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella 2018. The diachrony of tener que and other possession-based modal periphrases in Spanish. In Rocha, Nildicéia Aparecida, Angélica Rodrigues, Terezinha Carmo, and Suzi Cavalari, Marques Spatti (eds.) Novas Práticas em Pesquisa: Rompendo Fronteiras. Araraquara: Laboratório Editorial, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Olbertz, Hella forthcoming. Periphrastic expressions of non-epistemic modal necessity in Spanish: A semantic description. In Garachana, Mar, Sandra Montserrat i Buendía, and Pusch, Claus D. (eds.) From Composite Predicates to Verbal Periphrases in Romance Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ong, Teresa Wai See 2011. Prevent and stop complementation clauses: A corpus-based investigation of 19th, 20th and 21st century American English. MPhil thesis: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel 1988. Thematic genitives. In Nixon, Graham and Honey, John (eds.) An Historic Tongue: Studies in English Linguistics in Memory of Barbara Strang. London: Routledge, pp. 138–44.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann 2014. The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics 24(1): 105–29.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1987. The typology of subordination: Results, actual and potential. Transactions of the Philological Society 85(1): 90–109.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Review of Anna Wierzbicka’s The Semantics of Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 223–33.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos 2003. One, empty nouns, and θ-assignment. Linguistic Inquiry 34(2): 281–92.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1997. Appendix B. Genitives – A case study. In van Benthem, Johan and Alice ter Meulen (eds.) Handbook of Logic and Language. New York: Elsevier, pp. 464–70.Google Scholar
Patterson, Lee 1985. The logic of textual criticism and the way of genius. The Kane-Donaldson Piers Plowman in historical perspective. In McGann, Jerome J. (ed.) Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation. Chicago: The Chicago University Press, pp. 55–91.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann 1909. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 4th edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Payne, John and Berlage, Eva 2014. Genitive variation: The niche role of the oblique genitive. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 331–60.Google Scholar
Payne, John and Huddleston, Rodney 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 323–523.Google Scholar
Payne, John, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Scholz, Barbara C., and Berlage, Eva 2013. Anaphoric one and its implications. Language 89(4): 794–829.Google Scholar
Penke, Martina and Rosenbach, Anette (eds.) 2007. What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics: The Case of Innateness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike and Levey, Stephen 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in northeast England. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 441–71.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk and Van de Velde, Freek 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2): 543–81.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven 1994. The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Harris, Martin and Ramat, Paolo (eds.) Historical Development of Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 193–223.Google Scholar
Pishwa, Hanna 1999. The case of the ‘impersonal’ construction in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 20(1/2): 129–51.Google Scholar
Porter, David W. (ed.) 2002. Excerptiones de Prisciano: The Source for Ælfric’s Latin-Old English Grammar. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A. (eds.) Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar. Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 201–24.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina 2000. On stativity and causation. In Tenny, Carol and Pustejovsky, James (eds.) Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 417–44.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph 1965. Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Language 41(2): 205–17.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Core Team, R 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2009. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española, 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya 2016. The Theta System: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. In Everaert, Martin, Marelj, Marijana, and Reuland, Eric (eds.) Concepts, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–111.Google Scholar
Remberger, Eva-Maria 2010. The evidential shift of WANT. In Peterson, Tyler and Sauerland, Uli (eds.) Evidence from Evidentials. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 28, pp. 161–82.Google Scholar
Remberger, Eva-Maria 2011. Tense and volitionality. In Musan, Renate and Rathert, Monika (eds.) Tense across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 9–35.Google Scholar
Ricks, Christopher 2002. Allusion to the Poets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don 2006. A Linguistic History of English, Vol. I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don and Taylor, Ann 2014. The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti 1989. Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13: 16–19.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti 1999. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. III 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–331.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti 2008. From ‘quickly’ to ‘fairly’: On the history of rather. English Language and Linguistics 12(2): 345–59.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76(4): 367–88.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 205–49.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2006a. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus, and Schendl, Herbert (eds.) Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 143–66.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2006b. Processing complexity and competing sentential variants in present-day English. In Kürschner, Wilfried and Rapp, Reinhard (eds.) Linguistik International: Festschrift für Heinrich Weber. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers, pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Ingrid van Ostade, Tieken-Boon and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.) Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 301–29.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.) 2009a. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia 2009b. New departures. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.) One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–423.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81(3): 613–44.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2014. English genitive variation – The state of the art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2): 215–62.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Royster, James Finch 1918. The causative use of Hātan. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 17(1): 82–93.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani 2012. Exploring aspects of the Great Complement Shift, with evidence from the TIME Corpus and COCA. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 222–32.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani 2015. Linking Form and Meaning: Studies on Selected Control Patterns in Recent English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats 1983. English relatives revisited. Moderna Språk 77(3): 209–18.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 431–83.Google Scholar
Said, Edward W. 1975. The poet as Oedipus. New York Times, 13th April.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland 2015. Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Bański, Piotr, Biber, Hanno, Breiteneder, Evelyn, Kupietz, Marc, Lüngen, Harald, and Witt, Andreas (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache, pp. 28–34.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland and Bildhauer, Felix 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Declerck, Thierry, Doğan, Mehmet Uğur, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Moreno, Asuncion, Odijk, Jan, and Piperidis, Stelios (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12). Istanbul: European Language Resources Association, pp. 486–93.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. V. C. (ed.) 1995. William Langland, The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Critical Edition of the B-Text Based on Trinity College Cambridge MS B.15.17, 2nd edn. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar
Schmied, Josef 1993. Qualitative and quantitative research approaches to English relative constructions. In Souter, Clive and Atwell, Eric (eds.) Corpus-Based Computational Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Setiya, Kieran 2014. Intention. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/intention/.Google Scholar
[Shakespeare, William] 1594. The First Part of the Contention betwixt the Two Famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster. London: Printed by Thomas Creed, for Thomas Millington.Google Scholar
SHC = Craig, Hardin (ed.) 1951. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, and Kortmann, Bernd 2014. Measuring analyticity and syntheticity in creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1): 49–85.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter 2008. Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik 2008. The progressive and phrasal verbs: Evidence of colloquialization in nineteenth-century English? In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi, and Korhonen, Minna (eds.) The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 269–89.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik 2014. Syntactic stability and change in nineteenth-century newspaper language. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 311–30.Google Scholar
Söderwall, K. F. 1884–1918. Ordbok öfver Svenska Medeltids-språket, Vol. I-III. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeri- och Stilgjuteri-Aktiebolaget.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte 2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte, and Gildea, Spike (eds.) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–37.Google Scholar
Spradlin, Lauren 2016. OMG the word-final alveopalatals are cray-cray prev(alent): The morphophonology of totes constructions in English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22(1): 275–84.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413–43.Google Scholar
Stevens, Christopher M. 1995. On the grammaticalization of German können, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, and wollen. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 7(2): 179–206.Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley 1999. Isolated if-clauses in Australian English. In Collins, Peter and Lee, David (eds.) The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 273–94.Google Scholar
Stoffel, C. 1894. Studies in English Written and Spoken: For the Use of Continental Students, 1st series. Zutphen: W. J. Thieme.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim 1989. Subjects, specifiers, and X-bar theory. In Baltin, Mark R. and Kroch, Anthony S. (eds.) Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 232–62.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strevens, Peter 1972. British and American English. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55.Google Scholar
Sundby, et al. 1991: See DENG.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald J. L. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt, and Röthlisberger, Melanie 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2): 109–37.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Rosenbach, Anette, Bresnan, Joan, and Wolk, Christoph 2014. Culturally conditioned language change? A multivariate analysis of genitive constructions in ARCHER. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. Teen Talk: The Language of Adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Baayen, R. Harald 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2): 135–78.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann 2008. Contact effects of translation: Distinguishing two kinds of influence in Old English. Language Variation and Change 20(2): 341–65.Google Scholar
Thackeray, William Makepeace 1840 [1898]. On the French school of painting. In The Works of William Makepeace Thackeray: In Thirteen Volumes, with Biographical Introductions by His Daughter, Anne Ritchie, Vol. 5 Sketch Books. London: Smith, Elder and Co., pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Thackeray, William Makepeace 1850 [1898]. The Works of William Makepeace Thackeray: In Thirteen Volumes, with Biographical Introductions by His Daughter, Anne Ritchie, Vol. 2 The History of Pendennis: His Fortunes and Misfortunes, His Friends and His Greatest Enemy. London: Smith, Elder and Co.Google Scholar
van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid 2006. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism and the norm of correctness. In van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.) The Handbook of the History of English. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 539–57.Google Scholar
van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid 2009. An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid 2011. The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tissari, Heli 2003. LOVEscapes: Changes in Prototypical Senses and Cognitive Metaphors since 1500. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 1997. Literacy and prescriptivism as determinants of linguistic change: A case study based on relativization strategies. In Böker, Uwe and Sauer, Hans (eds.) Anglistentag 1996 Dresden: Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, pp. 83–93.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1972. The History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.) Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–40.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29–71.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2016a. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(1): 26–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2016b. Do semantic modal maps have a role in a constructionalization approach to modals? Constructions and Frames 8(1): 97–124.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2018. Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Bordería, Salvador Pons and Lamas, Óscar Loureda (eds.) Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change. Leiden: Brill, pp. 17–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale (eds.) Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trollope, Anthony 1879. Thackeray. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2008. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Minkova, Donka (eds.) Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 301–26.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Stathi, Katerina, Gehweiler, Elke, and König, Ekkehard (eds.) Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 51–71.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean 2008. International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English, 5th edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy, and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.) Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–79.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, De Smet, Hendrik, and Ghesquière, Lobke 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37(3): 473–89.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan and De Wit, Astrid 2010. The English comparative modals – A pilot study. In Cappelle, Bert and Wada, Naoaki (eds.) Distinctions in English Grammar: Offered to Renaat Declerck. Tokyo: Kaitakusha, pp. 127–47.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan and Plungian, Vladimir A. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1): 79–124.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, Noël, Dirk, and Van linden, An 2013. Had better, ‘d better and better: Diachronic and transatlantic variation. In Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Carretero, Marta, Hita, Jorge Arús, and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.) English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 119–54.Google Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem 1904. The Transition from the Impersonal to the Personal Construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem 1912. The origin of would rather and some of its analogues. Englische Studien 45: 381–96.Google Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem 1931. Beon and habban connected with an inflected infinitive. English Studies 13(1/6): 176–88.Google Scholar
van der Horst, J. M. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Van linden, An 2010. The rise of the to-infinitive: Evidence from adjectival complementation. English Language and Linguistics 14(1): 19–51.Google Scholar
Van linden, An 2015. Comparative modals: (Dis)similar diachronic tendencies. Functions of Language 22(2): 192–231.Google Scholar
Van linden, An and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe 2011. Revisiting deontic modality and related categories: A conceptual map based on the study of English modal adjectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 150–63.Google Scholar
van Steenis, Lindsey 2013. The grammaticalization of have to and hebben te: A comparative study between English and Dutch. MA thesis: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D’Hertefelt, Sarah, and An, Van linden 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36(1): 123–53.Google Scholar
Vikner, Carl and Jensen, Per Anker 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive: Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2): 191–226.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel 2014. Compositionality and change. In Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 103–23.Google Scholar
Visconti, Jacqueline 2004. Conditionals and subjectification: Implications for a theory of semantic change. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry (eds.) Up and down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169–92.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai 2000. Whatever. In Jackson, Brendan and Matthews, Tanya (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 10. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe 2006. Die Große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walkden, George 2017. The actuation problem. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 403–24.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty, and Huddleston, Rodney 2002. Information packaging. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1363–447.Google Scholar
Ward, William 1765. An Essay on Grammar. (Facsimile edition, Alston, R. C. (ed.) English Linguistics 1500–1800. Menston: Scolar Press, 1967.)Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira 2009. A parametric shift in the D-system in Early Middle English: Relativization, articles, adjectival inflection, and indeterminates. In Crisma, Paola and Longobardi, Giuseppe (eds.) Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 358–74.Google Scholar
Weinert, Sabine 2009. Implicit and explicit modes of learning: Similarities and differences from a developmental perspective. Linguistics 47(2): 241–71.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena 2001. Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: The parasitic supine. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(1): 199–228.Google Scholar
Willis, David 2017. Degrammaticalization. In Ledgeway, Adam and Roberts, Ian (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–48.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3): 382–419.Google Scholar
Wood, Johanna L. 2007. Is there a DP in Old English? In Salmons, Joseph C. and Dubenion-Smith, Shannon (eds.) Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, 31 July – 5 August 2005. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 167–87.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria 2007. Preposition stranding and prescriptivism in English from 1500 to 1900: A corpus-based approach. PhD thesis: The University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria 2016. Early and Late Modern English grammars as evidence in English historical linguistics. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–80.Google Scholar
Yerkes, David 1982. Syntax and Style in Old English: A Comparison of the Two Versions of Wærferth’s Translation of Gregory’s Dialogues. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies.Google Scholar
Yllera, Alicia 1980. Sintaxis Histórica del Verbo Español: Las Perífrasis Medievales. Zaragoza: Departamento de Filología Francesa, Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carletta, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Tatiana Nikitina, M. O’Connor, Catherine, and Wasow, Tom 2004. Animacy Encoding in English: Why and how. In Webber, Bonnie and Byron, Donna (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 118–25.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. 1949. A note on ‘inorganic for’. English Studies 30(1–6): 265–9.Google Scholar
Zeitlin, Jacob 1908. The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra 2006. Omnitemporal will. Language Sciences 28(1): 76–119.Google Scholar
Zupitza, Julius 1880. Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23(1): 133–48.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×