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-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:40:20.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Corpora and Quantitative Methods

from Part II - Methods and Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

By
Susan Pintzuk ,
Ann Taylor  and
Anthony Warner
Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Ian Roberts
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
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
The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 218 - 240
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Bailey, C.-J. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bean, M. C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English (Croom Helm linguistics series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. ‘Changing EPP parameters in the history of English: Accounting for variation and change’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blythe, R. and Croft, W. 2012. ‘S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change’, Language 88: 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H. 1998. ‘Two heads aren’t always better than one’, Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1951. ‘A mathematical model for simple learning’, Psychological Review 58: 313–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bush, R. and Mosteller, F. 1958. Stochastic models for learning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Canale, W. M. 1978. ‘Word order change in Old English: Base reanalysis in generative grammar’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I. 1993. ‘A computational model of language learnability and language change’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, P. 2002. ‘She say, she go, she be like: Verbs of quotation over time in African American Vernacular English’, American Speech 77: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danchev, A. 1991. ‘Language change typology and some aspects of the SVO development in English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 103–24.Google Scholar
Durham, M., Haddican, B., Zweig, E., Johnson, D., Baker, Z., Cockeram, D., Danks, E. and Tyler, L. 2012. ‘Constant linguistic effects in the diffusion of be like’, Journal of English Linguistics 40: 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ecay, A. 2015. ‘Construction and lexical class effects in the history of do-support’, presentation at DiGS17, Reykjavík, Iceland, 29–31 May 2015.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. ‘Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. and Pintzuk, S. 2011. ‘Verb (projection) raising in Old English’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 219–38.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Wallenberg, J. 2013. ‘How variational acquisition drives syntactic change: The loss of verb movement in Scandinavian’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A. and Hansen, Z.S. 2010. ‘V-to-I and V2 in subordinate clauses: An investigation of Faroese in relation to Icelandic and Danish’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13: 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohonen, V. 1978. On the development of English word order in religious prose around 1000 and 1200 A.D.: A quantitative study of word order in context. Meddelanden Fran Stiftelsens for Äbo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, no. 38. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989a. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989b. ‘Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do’, in Fasold, R. W. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 132–72.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2: 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 699–729.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Delfs, L. 2004. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B. and Diertani, A. 2010. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 1st edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A. 2000. The Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM, 2nd edn (www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/).Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1979. ‘The English passive: An argument for historical rule stability’, Linguistic Inquiry 10: 667–88.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1981. ‘Explaining syntactic change’, in Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. W. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman, pp. 207–40.Google Scholar
Los, B. 2009. ‘The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English’, English Language and Linguistics 13(1): 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1979. ‘F. Th. Visser, An historical syntax of the English language: Some caveats concerning Old English’, English Studies 60: 537–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez Lorido, R. 2009. ‘Reconsidering the role of syntactic “heaviness” in Old English split coordination’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 45.1: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Plug, L. 2002. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry (YCOEP). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang18/pcorpus.html).Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. and Taylor, A. 2006. ‘The loss of OV order in the history of English’, in van Kemenade, A. and Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 249–78.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1988. ‘The emergence of a word order difference in Scandinavian subordinate clauses’, in Fekete, D. and Laubitz, Z. (eds.), McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax, pp. 215–38.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax: A theory of V to I raising and pro-drop (Linguistik Aktuell, vol. 15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russom, J. H. 1982. ‘An examination of the evidence for OE indirect passives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 677–80.Google Scholar
Santorini, B. 1993. ‘The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish’, Language Variation and Change 5: 257–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, A. R. and Vance, B. S. 1999. ‘An explanation for the decline of null pronouns in certain Germanic and Romance languages’, in DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 257–83.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. 1977. ‘Motivations for exbraciation in Old English’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. and Minkova, D. 1991. ‘Subordination and word order change in the history of English’, in Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 367–408.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. 2002. ‘Morphosyntactic change in the history of the Mainland Scandinavian languages’, unpublished PhD thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. 2003. ‘The rich agreement hypothesis and Early Modern Danish embedded-clause word order’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 233–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. and D’Arcy, A. 2009. ‘Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation and language change’, Language 85(1): 58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Nurmi, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Nevalainen, T. 2006. The York–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edn (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/PCEEC-manual/index.htm).Google Scholar
Taylor, A. and van der Wurff, W. 2005. ‘Special issue on aspects of OV and VO order in the history of English’, English Language and Linguistics 9(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. and Beths, F. 2003. The York–Toronto–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York. Oxford Text Archive, 1st edition (www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/YcoeHome1.htm).Google Scholar
van der Wurff, W. 1999. ‘Objects and verbs in modern Icelandic and fifteenth-century English: A word order parallel and its causes’, Lingua 109: 237–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1997. ‘V°-to-I° movement and inflection for person in all tenses’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.), The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, pp. 189–213.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K. 2008. ‘Verbal semantics and the diachronic development of DOM in Spanish’, Probus 20: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, J. 2009. ‘Antisymmetry and the conservation of c-command: Scrambling and phrase structure in synchronic and diachronic perspective’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J., Ingason, A. K., Sigurðsson, E. F. and Rögnvaldsson, E. 2011. Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus (IcePaHC). Department of Linguistics, University of Iceland. Online publication, version 0.9. (www.linguist.is/icelandic_treebank).Google Scholar
Warner, A. 2004. ‘What drove DO?’, in Kay, C., Horobin, S. and Smith, J. (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–42.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2000. ‘Internal and external forces in language change’, Language Variation and Change 12: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle 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
×