Book contents
- Syntactic Change in Late Modern English
- Studies In English Language
- Syntactic Change in Late Modern English
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Sociocultural and Linguistic Change in Late Modern English
- Chapter 3 Aspects of Language Change
- Chapter 4 Methodological Framework
- Chapter 5 Colloquialization I: Not-Contraction
- Chapter 6 Colloquialization II: Co-ordination by And
- Chapter 7 Densification I: Nouns as Premodifiers in Noun Phrases
- Chapter 8 Densification II: Participle Clauses as Postmodifiers in Noun Phrases
- Chapter 9 Concluding Discussion
- Appendix
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
Book contents
- Syntactic Change in Late Modern English
- Studies In English Language
- Syntactic Change in Late Modern English
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgements
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Sociocultural and Linguistic Change in Late Modern English
- Chapter 3 Aspects of Language Change
- Chapter 4 Methodological Framework
- Chapter 5 Colloquialization I: Not-Contraction
- Chapter 6 Colloquialization II: Co-ordination by And
- Chapter 7 Densification I: Nouns as Premodifiers in Noun Phrases
- Chapter 8 Densification II: Participle Clauses as Postmodifiers in Noun Phrases
- Chapter 9 Concluding Discussion
- Appendix
- References
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Syntactic Change in Late Modern EnglishStudies on Colloquialization and Densification, pp. 271 - 298Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Aarts, Bas, López-Couso, María José, and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2012. “Late Modern English: Syntax”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 869–87.Google Scholar
Aitchison, Jean. 2001. Language Change: Progress or Decay? 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Altick, Richard D. 1957. The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800–1900. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2002. Negation in Non-Standard British English: Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2014a. “‘Pained the Eye and Stunned the Ear’: Language Ideology and the Progressive Passive in the Nineteenth Century”. In Pfenninger, Simone E., Timofeeva, Olga, Gardner, Anne-Christine, Honkapohja, Alpo, Hundt, Marianne, and Schreier, Daniel (eds.), Contact, Variation, and Change in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 113–36.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2014b. “The Decline of the Be-Perfect, Linguistic Relativity, and Grammar Writing in the Nineteenth Century”. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–37.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2016. Language between Description and Prescription: Verbs and Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. 1990– 1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016. Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, Zurich.Google Scholar
Asquith, Ivon. 1978. “The Structure, Ownership and Control of the Press, 1780–1855”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 98–116.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita. 2012. “Late Modern English: Standardization”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 939–52.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita. 2014. “Nineteenth-Century English: Norms and Usage”. In Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik, and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 151–69.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita, and González-Díaz, Victorina. 2005. “Eighteenth-Century Prescriptivism in English: A Re-evaluation of Its Effects on Actual Language Use”. Multilingua 24(4), 317–41.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita, and Laitinen, Mikko. 2014. “Letters of Artisans and the Labouring Poor (England, c. 1750–1835): Approaching Linguistic Diversity in Late Modern English”. In Pfenninger, Simone E., Timofeeva, Olga, Gardner, Anne-Christine, Honkapohja, Alpo, Hundt, Marianne, and Schreier, Daniel (eds.), Contact, Variation, and Change in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 187–211.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita, Schreier, Daniel, and Watts, Richard J. (eds.). 2015. Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Frances O. 1985. “Relative Which in Late 18th Century Usage: The Clift Family Correspondence”. In Eaton, Roger, Fischer, Olga, Koopman, Willem, and Frederike, van der Leek (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Amsterdam, 10–13 April, 1985. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 15–29.Google Scholar
Bailey, Richard W. 1996. Nineteenth-Century English. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Richard W. 2010. “Variation and Change in Eighteenth-Century English”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 182–99.Google Scholar
Ball, C. N. 1994. “Automated Text Analysis: Cautionary Tales”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 9(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1996. “A Diachronic Study of Relative Markers in Spoken and Written English”. Language Variation and Change 8(2), 227–58.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle, and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2017. “A Multimodel Inference Approach to Categorical Variant Choice: Construction, Priming and Frequency Effects on the Choice between Full and Contracted Forms of Am, Are and Is”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(2), 203–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan. 1993. “The Grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English”. In Milroy, James, and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. Harlow: Longman, 187–213.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2010a. An Introduction to Regional Englishes: Dialect Variation in England. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2010b. “Prescriptivism and the Suppression of Variation”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–37.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Fitzmaurice, Susan, and Hodson, Jane (eds.). 2012. Selected Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Late Modern English. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 16(2).Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Schoenemann, Tom (The “Five Graces Group”). 2009. “Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper”. Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berridge, Virginia. 1978. “Popular Sunday Papers and Mid-Victorian Society”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 247–64.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. “Representativeness in Corpus Design”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4), 243–57.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. “Variation among University Spoken and Written Registers: A New Multi-Dimensional Analysis”. In Leistyna, Pepi, and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 47–70.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. “Register as a Predictor of Linguistic Variation”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Clark, Victoria. 2002. “Historical Shifts in Modification Patterns with Complex Noun Phrase Structures: How Long Can You Go without a Verb?” In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, and Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–66.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, with Egbert, Jesse, Gray, Bethany, Oppliger, Rahel, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. “Variationist versus Text-Linguistic Approaches to Grammatical Change in English: Nominal Modifiers of Head Nouns”. In Kytö, Merja, and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 351–75.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, 253–75.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2011. “Grammatical Change in the Noun Phrase: The Influence of Written Language Use”. English Language and Linguistics 15(2), 223–50.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2012. “The Competing Demands of Popularization vs. Economy: Written Language in the Age of Mass Literacy”. In Nevalainen, Terttu, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 314–28.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2013. “Nominalizing the Verb Phrase in Academic Science Writing”. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey, and Wallis, Sean (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Biber, Douglas, and Reppen, Randi. 2015. “Introduction”. In Biber, Douglas, and Reppen, Randi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–8.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 2014. “The Myth of Creole ‘Exceptionalism’”. In Åfarli, Tor A., and Mæhlum, Brit (eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 191–201.Google Scholar
Blythe, Richard A., and Croft, William. 2012. “S-Curves and the Mechanisms of Propagation in Language Change”. Language 88(2), 269–304.Google Scholar
Bös, Birte. 2015. “From 1760 to 1960: Diversification and Popularization”. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Brownlees, Nicholas, Bös, Birte, and Fries, Udo, News as Changing Texts: Corpora, Methodologies and Analysis. 2nd ed. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 91–143.Google Scholar
Boyce, George. 1978. “The Fourth Estate: The Reappraisal of a Concept”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 19–40.Google Scholar
Brainerd, Barron. 1989 [1993]. “The Contractions of Not: A Historical Note”. Journal of English Linguistics 22(2), 176–96.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, and De Smet, Hendrik. 2019. “How Do Grammatical Patterns Emerge? The Origins and Development of the English Proper Noun Modifier Construction”. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 879–99.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, and Kolkmann, Julia (eds.). 2019. “Special Issue: Different Perspectives on Proper Noun Modifiers”. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 749–58.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, Kolkmann, Julia, and Payne, John. 2019. “The Impact of Semantic Relations on Grammatical Alternation: An Experimental Study of Proper Name Modifiers and Determiner Genitives”. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 797–826.Google Scholar
Brewer, Charlotte. 2007. “Reporting Eighteenth-Century Vocabulary in the OED”. In Considine, John, and Iamartino, Giovanni (eds.), Words and Dictionaries from the British Isles in Historical Perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 109–35.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy (ed.). 2015. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra. 2000. “Three Frequency Effects in Syntax”. In Juge, Matthew L., and Moxley, Jeri L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 378–88.Google Scholar
Calvo Cortés, Nuria. 2020. “Women Writers in the 18th Century: The Semantics of Motion in Their Choice of Perfect Auxiliaries”. In Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Late Modern English: Novel Encounters. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 203–18.Google Scholar
González, Castillo, María, del Pilar. 2007. Uncontracted Negatives and Negative Contractions in Contemporary English: A Corpus-Based Study. (PhD thesis, University of Santiago de Compostela, unpublished.)Google Scholar
CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2006. Compiled by Kytö, Merja, and Culpeper, Jonathan.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K., and Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Dialectology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
The Chicago Manual of Style Online. 2017. 17th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2012. “Linguistic Levels: Styles, Registers, Genres, Text Types”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 237–53.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2017. “The Poor Man’s Guardian: The Linguistic Construction of Social Groups and Their Relations”. In Palander-Collin, Minna, Ratia, Maura, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Diachronic Developments in English News Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–55.Google Scholar
Clark, John W. 1975. The Language and Style of Anthony Trollope. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Clarke, Bob. 2004. From Grub Street to Fleet Street: An Illustrated History of English Newspapers to 1899. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
CLMETEV = The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended Version). 2006. Compiled by De Smet, Hendrik.Google Scholar
CNNE = The Corpus of Nineteenth-Century Newspaper English (n.d.). Compiled by Smitterberg, Erik.Google Scholar
COHA = The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. 2010–. Compiled by Davies, Mark.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conboy, Martin. 2010. The Language of Newspapers: Socio-Historical Perspectives. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Conboy, Martin. 2017. “British Popular Newspaper Traditions: From the Nineteenth Century to the First Tabloid”. In Palander-Collin, Minna, Ratia, Maura, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Diachronic Developments in English News Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 119–36.Google Scholar
CONCE = A Corpus of Nineteenth-Century English (n.d.). Compiled by Kytö, Merja, and Rudanko, Juhani.Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo. 2012. “The Role of Social Networks and Mobility in Diachronic Sociolinguistics”. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Conde-Silvestre, Manuel, Camilo, Juan (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 332–52.Google Scholar
Cotter, Colleen. 2003. “Prescription and Practice: Motivations behind Change in News Discourse”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4(1), 45–74.Google Scholar
Cournane, Ailís. 2017. “In Defence of the Child Innovator”. In Mathieu, Éric, and Truswell, Robert (eds.), Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10–24.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curran, James. 1978. “The Press as an Agency of Social Control: An Historical Perspective”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 51–75.Google Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2014. Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hubert, D’hoedt, Frauke, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. “Variability in Verb Complementation in Late Modern English: Finite vs. Non-finite Patterns”. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 182–203.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 and New York: Oxford University Press, 157–74.Google Scholar
de Haan, Pieter. 1989. Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrase: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. 1975. Number and Case Relations in 19th Century British English: A Comparative Study of Grammar and Usage. Antwerp and Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.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, 92–329.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1999. “Slow, Slow, Quick, Quick, Slow: The Dance of Language Change?” In Bringas López, Ana, González Álvarez, Dolores, Pérez Guerra, Javier, Rama Martínez, Esperanza, and Varela Bravo, Eduardo (eds.), “Woonderous Ænglissce”: Selim Studies in Medieval English Language. Vigo: Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade de Vigo, 51–64.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2003. “Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-curves”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 54–70.Google Scholar
Denison, David, and Hundt, Marianne. 2013. “Defining Relatives”. Journal of English Linguistics 41(2), 135–67.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. “How Gradual Change Progresses: The Interaction between Convention and Innovation”. Language Variation and Change 28(1), 83–102.Google Scholar
Devitt, Amy J. 1989. Standardizing Written English: Diffusion in the Case of Scotland 1520–1659. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2008. New-Dialect Formation in Canada: Evidence from the English Modal Auxiliaries. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 2004. “Conjunction in Sentence and Discourse: Sentence-Initial and and Discourse Structure”. Journal of Pragmatics 36(10), 1,761–79.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina. 2012. “Late Modern English: Semantics and Lexicon”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 887–900.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina (ed.). 2015. Transatlantic Perspectives on Late Modern English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina, and Jones, Charles (eds.). 2003. Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina, and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.). 2008. Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 2015. “‘Representativeness’, ‘Bad Data’, and Legitimate Expectations: What Can an Electronic Historical Corpus Tell Us That We Didn’t Actually Know Already (and How)?” In Gippert, Jost, and Gehrke, Ralf (eds.), Historical Corpora: Challenges and Perspectives. Tübingen: Narr, 13–33.Google Scholar
Enrique-Arias, Andrés. 2018. “Some Methodological Issues in the Corpus-Based Study of Morphosyntactic Variation: The Case of Old Spanish Possessives”. In Whitt, Richard J. (ed.), Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 261–79.Google Scholar
Evans, Mel. 2013. The Language of Queen Elizabeth I: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Royal Style and Identity. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fairman, Tony. 2006. “Words in English Record Office Documents of the Early 1800s”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–88.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2007. “Drift and the Development of Sentential Complements in British and American English from 1700 to the Present Day”. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge L., and Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.), “Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed”: New Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, 161–235.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2010. “Variation in Sentential Complements in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century English: A Processing-Based Explanation”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200–20.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Michael, and Seoane, Elena. 2012. “Democratization”. In Nevalainen, Terttu, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 392–401.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani, and Paulasto, Heli. 2008. English and Celtic in Contact. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Finkenstaedt, Thomas, Leisi, Ernst, and Wolff, Dieter. 1970. A Chronological English Dictionary: Listing 80,000 Words in Order of Their Earliest Known Occurrence. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2016. “Morphosyntactic Change”. In Kytö, Merja, and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 237–55.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2006. “The Origin of Passive Get”. English Language and Linguistics 10(2), 225–52.Google Scholar
Fries, Udo. 2012. “English and the Media: Newspapers”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 1,063–75.Google Scholar
Fries, Udo. 2015. “Newspapers from 1665 to 1765”. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Brownlees, Nicholas, Bös, Birte, and Fries, Udo, News as Changing Texts: Corpora, Methodologies and Analysis. 2nd ed. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 49–89.Google Scholar
Fritz, Clemens W. A. 2007. From English in Australia to Australian English: 1788–1900. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Geisler, Christer. 1995. Relative Infinitives in English. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Geisler, Christer. 2002. “Investigating Register Variation in Nineteenth-Century English: A Multi-Dimensional Comparison”. In Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M., and Biber, Douglas (eds.), Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 249–71.Google Scholar
Geisler, Christer. 2003. “Gender-Based Variation in Nineteenth-Century English Letter Writing”. In Leistyna, Pepi, and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 87–106.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in Nineteenth-Century England: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 2004. Text Types and the History of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Biber, Douglas. 2018. “Academic Writing as a Locus of Grammatical Change: The Development of Phrasal Complexity Features”. In Whitt, Richard J. (ed.), Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 117–46.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2005. “Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing of Word Frequencies: A Follow-Up on Kilgarriff”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2), 277–94.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2010. “Modeling Diachronic Change in the Third Person Singular: A Multifactorial, Verb- and Author-Specific Exploratory Approach”. English Language and Linguistics 14(3), 293–320.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2011. “A Regional Analysis of Contraction Rate in Written Standard American English”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(4), 514–46.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J. 2020. “What It Means to Describe Speech: Pragmatic Variation and Change in Speech Descriptors in Late Modern English”. In Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Late Modern English: Novel Encounters. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295–314.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J., and Smitterberg, Erik. 2014. “Conjuncts in Nineteenth-Century English: Diachronic Development and Genre Diversity”. English Language and Linguistics 18(1), 157–81.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J., and Walker, Terry. 2006. “The Subjunctive in Adverbial Clauses in Nineteenth-Century English”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 89–109.Google Scholar
Günther, Christine. 2019. “A Difficult to Explain Phenomenon: Increasing Complexity in the Prenominal Position”. English Language and Linguistics 23(3), 645–70.Google Scholar
Harrison, Dick. 2018. Englands historia. Del II: Från 1600 till idag. Lund: Historiska media.Google Scholar
Harvie, Christopher. 1992. “Revolution and the Rule of Law (1789–1851)”. In Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419–62.Google Scholar
Harwood, William. 2018. “Reduced Relatives and Extended Phases: A Phase-Based Analysis of the Inflectional Restrictions on English Reduced Relative Clauses”. Studia Linguistica 72(2), 428–71.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2015. “Speech-Like Syntax in Written Texts: Changing Syntactic Conventions in News Discourse”. In Bös, Birte, and Kornexl, Lucia (eds.), Changing Genre Conventions in Historical English News Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 191–221.Google Scholar
Haugland, Kari E. 1995. “Is’t Allow’d or Ain’t It? On Contraction in Early Grammars and Spelling Books”. Studia Neophilologica 67(2), 165–84.Google Scholar
Helsinki Corpus = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Rissanen, Matti (Project leader), Kytö, Merja (Project secretary), Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena and Kilpiö, Matti (Old English), Nevanlinna, Saara and Taavitsainen, Irma (Middle English), and Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (Early Modern English).Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2003. “How Do Dialects Get the Features They Have? On the Process of New Dialect Formation”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 213–39.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2004a. Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2004b. “Appendix 2: Timeline for Varieties of English”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 621–26.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2010a. Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010b. “Preface”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, xvii–xviii.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010c. “Attitudes and Concerns in Eighteenth-Century English”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–20.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010d. “English in Eighteenth-Century Ireland”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 235–68.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2012. “Standard English and Standards of English”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–33.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2020. “The Interplay of Internal and External Factors in Varieties of English”. In Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Late Modern English: Novel Encounters. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 43–64.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2020. “The Great Temptation: What Diachronic Corpora Do and Do Not Reveal about Social Change”. In Rautionaho, Paula, Nurmi, Arja, and Klemola, Juhani (eds.), Corpora and the Changing Society: Studies in the Evolution of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–27.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin, and Correia Saavedra, David. 2016. “The Unidirectionality of Semantic Changes in Grammaticalization: An Experimental Approach to the Asymmetric Priming Hypothesis”. English Language and Linguistics 22(3), 357–80.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin, and Mair, Christian. 2015. “Grammatical Change”. In Biber, Douglas, and Reppen, Randi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 180–200.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. “Using the OED Quotations Database as a Corpus – a Linguistic Appraisal”. ICAME Journal 28, 17–30.Google Scholar
Hollis, Patricia. 1970. The Pauper Press: A Study in Working-Class Radicalism of the 1830s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. 1973. “Tense and Time Reference in Reduced Relative Clauses”. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2), 251–6.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2001. “What Corpora Tell Us about the Grammaticalisation of Voice in Get-Constructions”. Studies in Language 25(1), 49–88.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. “Animacy, Agentivity, and the Spread of the Progressive in Modern English”. English Language and Linguistics 8(1), 47–69.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2009. “Colonial Lag, Colonial Innovation or Simply Language Change?” In Rohdenburg, Günter, and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–37.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David, and Schneider, Gerold. 2012a. “Relative Complexity in Scientific Discourse”. English Language and Linguistics 16(2), 209–40.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Denison, David, and Schneider, Gerold. 2012b. “Retrieving Relatives from Historical Data”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 27(1), 3–16.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 and New York: Oxford University Press, 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
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 and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–33.Google Scholar
Johansson, Christine. 2006. “Relativizers in Nineteenth-Century English”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 136–82.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 1996. The Linguistic Individual: Self-Expression in Language and Linguistics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 2012. “Late Modern English: Phonology”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 827–42.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1992. “Diachronic Explanation: Putting Speakers Back into the Picture”. In Davis, Garry W., and Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.), Explanation in Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 123–44.Google Scholar
Joyce, Patrick. 1991. “The People’s English: Language and Class in England c.1840–1920”. In Burke, Peter, and Porter, Roy (eds.), Language, Self, and Society: A Social History of Language. Cambridge: Polity Press, 154–90.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1992. Social Stylistics: Syntactic Variation in British Newspapers. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Juffs, Alan. 1998. “Main Verb versus Reduced Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution in L2 Sentence Processing”. Language Learning 48(1), 107–47.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994 [1990]. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. Translated by Nerlich, Brigitte. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2005. “Language Is Never, Ever, Ever, Random”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2), 263–76.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. 1975. “Are Relative Infinitives Modal?” Studia Neophilologica 47(2), 323–32.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. 1998. “On Contraction in Modern English”. Studia Neophilologica 69(2), 155–86.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. 2009. “The Revived Subjunctive”. In Rohdenburg, Günter, and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 246–56.Google Scholar
Knowles, Gerry. 1997. A Cultural History of the English Language. London and New York: Arnold.Google Scholar
Koplenig, Alexander. 2019. “Against Statistical Significance Testing in Corpus Linguistics”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(2), 321–46.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A., Jr. 2009. The Linguistics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. Jr. 2015a. “Complex Systems in the History of American English”. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Kytö, Merja, Claridge, Claudia, and Smith, Jeremy (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 251–64.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A., Jr. 2015b. Language and Complex Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. “Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change”. Language Variation and Change 1(3), 199–244.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1991. Variation and Diachrony, with Early American English in Focus: Studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1997. “Be/Have + Past Participle: The Choice of the Auxiliary with Intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English”. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 17–85.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Pahta, Päivi. 2012. “Evidence from Historical Corpora up to the Twentieth Century”. In Nevalainen, Terttu, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 123–33.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Romaine, Suzanne. 2006. “Adjective Comparison in Nineteenth-Century English”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 194–214.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Rudanko, Juhani, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2000. “Building a Bridge between the Present and the Past: A Corpus of 19th-Century English”. ICAME Journal 24, 85–97.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.). 2006a. Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2006b. “Introduction: Exploring Nineteenth-Century English – Past and Present Perspectives”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–16.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2006. “19th-Century English: An Age of Stability or a Period of Change?” In Facchinetti, Roberta, and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Corpus-Based Studies of Diachronic English. Bern: Peter Lang, 199–230.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2019. “The Conjunction and in Phrasal and Clausal Structures in the Old Bailey Corpus”. In Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, Linda, van Bergen, and Hollmann, Willem B. (eds.), Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 234–50.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.). 2020a. Late Modern English: Novel Encounters. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2020b. “Introduction: Late Modern English Studies into the Twenty-First Century”. In Kytö, Merja, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Late Modern English: Novel Encounters. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–17.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, and Walker, Terry. 2003. “The Linguistic Study of Early Modern English Speech-Related Texts: How ‘Bad’ Can ‘Bad’ Data Be?” Journal of English Linguistics 31(3), 221–48.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. “Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology”. Language in Society 1(1), 97–120.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 1: Internal Factors. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2: Social Factors. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lange, Claudia. 2012. “Standardization: Standards in the History of English”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 994–1,006.Google Scholar
Langford, Paul. 1992. “The Eighteenth Century (1688–1789)”. In Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 350–418.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1999. “Phonology and Morphology”. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–186.Google Scholar
Lee, Alan J. 1976. The Origins of the Popular Press in England: 1855–1914. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lee, Alan. 1978. “The Structure, Ownership and Control of the Press, 1855–1914”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 117–29.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. “Recent Grammatical Change in English: Data, Description, Theory”. In Aijmer, Karin, and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 61–81.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. “New Resources, or Just Better Old Ones? The Holy Grail of Representativeness”. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, and Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 133–49.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
Lehto, Anu. 2013. “Complexity and Genre Conventions: Text Structure and Coordination in Early Modern English Proclamations”. In Jucker, Andreas H., Landert, Daniela, Seiler, Annina, and Studer-Joho, Nicole (eds.), Meaning in the History of English: Words and Texts in Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 233–56.Google Scholar
Leonard, Sterling Andrus. 1929. The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage: 1700–1800. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2012. “Late Modern English: Pragmatics and Discourse”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 901–15.Google Scholar
Liddle, Dallas. 1999. “Who Invented the ‘Leading Article’? Reconstructing the History and Prehistory of a Victorian Newspaper Genre”. Media History 5(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 2003. “Grammaticalisation: Cause or Effect?” In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–123.Google Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 2000. “Newspaper Genres and Newspaper English”. In Ungerer, Friedrich (ed.), English Media Texts Past and Present: Language and Textual Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 131–49.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2007. “Auxiliary and Negative Cliticisation in Late Modern English”. In Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge L., and Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.), “Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed”: New Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, 301–23.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2017. “Transferring Insights from Child Language Acquisition to Diachronic Change (and Vice Versa)”. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra, and Pfenninger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 332–47.Google Scholar
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London.Google Scholar
Lyne, Susanna. 2011. The Subject of the Verbal Gerund: A Study of Variation in English. (Doctoral thesis, Uppsala University, unpublished.)Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel. 2013. “Variation in English Auxiliary Realization: A New Take on Contraction”. Language Variation and Change 25, 17–41.Google Scholar
MacMahon, Michael K. C. 1998. “Phonology”. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 373–535.Google Scholar
Maguire, Warren, Clark, Lynn, and Watson, Kevin. 2013. “Introduction: What Are Mergers and Can They Be Reversed?”English Language and Linguistics 17(2), 229–39.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela. 2013. Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. New York: Routledge.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 and Atlanta: Rodopi, 195–209.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006a. “Nonfinite Complement Clauses in the Nineteenth Century: The Case of Remember”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–28.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006b. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation, and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian, and Hundt, Marianne. 1995. “Why Is the Progressive Becoming More Frequent in English? A Corpus-Based Investigation of Language Change in Progress”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43(2), 111–22.Google Scholar
Matheson, Donald. 2000. “The Birth of News Discourse: Changes in News Language in British Newspapers, 1880–1930”. Media, Culture & Society 22, 557–73.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Éric, and Truswell, Robert. 2017. “Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax”. In Mathieu, Éric, and Truswell, Robert (eds.), Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–9.Google Scholar
Matthew, H. C. G. 1992. “The Liberal Age (1851–1914)”. In Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 463–522.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 2014. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (online). 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin. 2014. “‘[W]ell Are You Not Got Over Thinking about Going to Ireland Yet’: The Be-Perfect in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Irish English”. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 333–51.Google Scholar
McElhinny, Bonnie S. 1993. “Copula and Auxiliary Contraction in the Speech of White Americans”. American Speech 68(4), 371–99.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard, and Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2017. “On the Disappearance of the BE Perfect in Late Modern English”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 49(2), 159–75.Google Scholar
McKoon, Gail, and Ratcliff, Roger. 2003. “Meaning through Syntax: Language Comprehension and the Reduced Relative Clause Construction”. Psychological Review 110(3), 490–525.Google Scholar
McKoon, Gail, and Ratcliff, Roger. 2005. “‘Meaning through Syntax’ in Sentence Production and Comprehension: Reply to McRae et al. (2005)”. Psychological Review 112(4), 1,032–9.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McRae, Ken, Hare, Mary, and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2005a. “Meaning through Syntax Is Insufficient to Explain Comprehension of Sentences with Reduced Relative Clauses: Comment on McKoon and Ratcliff (2003)”. Psychological Review 112 (4), 1,022–31.Google Scholar
McRae, Ken, Hare, Mary, and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 2005b. “Postscript: Rejoinder to McKoon and Ratcliff (2005)”. Psychological Review 112(4), 1,031.Google Scholar
Milic, Louis T. 1977. “Tone in Steele’s ‘Tatler’ ”. In Bond, Donovan H., and McLeod, W. Reynolds (eds.), Newsletters to Newspapers: Eighteenth-Century Journalism. Morgantown: School of Journalism, West Virginia University, 33–45.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil. 2009. “Modal Verbs in TIME: Frequency Changes 1923–2006”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2), 191–220.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992a. Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992b. “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 and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 72–91.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1996. “Linguistic Ideology and the Anglo-Saxon Lineage of English”. In Klemola, Juhani, Kytö, Merja, and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Speech Past and Present: Studies in English Dialectology in Memory of Ossi Ihalainen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 169–86.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1997. “Internal vs. External Motivations for Linguistic Change”. Multilingua 16(4), 311–23.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. 1998. “Children Can’t Speak or Write Properly Any More”. In Bauer, Laurie, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language Myths. London: Penguin, 58–65.Google Scholar
Milroy, James, and Milroy, Lesley. 1985. “Linguistic Change, Social Network and Speaker Innovation”. Journal of Linguistics 21(2), 339–84.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. 2nd ed. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 2000. “Social Network Analysis and Language Change: Introduction”. European Journal of English Studies 4(3), 217–23.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More Support for More-Support: The Role of Processing Constraints on the Choice between Synthetic and Analytic Comparative Forms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2012. “Late Modern English: Morphology”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 842–69.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael. 1989. “The Standardization of English Relative Clauses”. In Trahern, Joseph B. Jr. (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the History of Language Change in Honor of John Hurt Fisher. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 113–38.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel, and Crespo, Begoña (eds.). 2012. Astronomy “Playne and Simple”: The Writing of Science between 1700 and 1900. Including CD-ROM: A Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy (CETA). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moskowich, Isabel, Crespo, Begoña, Puente-Castelo, Luis, and Monaco, Leida Maria (eds.). 2019. Writing History in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2008. Language Evolution: Contact, Competition and Change. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2014. “Language Ecology, Language Evolution, and the Actuation Question”. In Åfarli, Tor A., and Mæhlum, Brit (eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 13–35.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2003. “Talking Proper”: The Rise of Accent as Social Symbol. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2006. “English in the Nineteenth Century”. In Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.), The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 274–304.Google Scholar
Nahkola, Kari, and Saanilahti, Marja. 2004. “Mapping Language Changes in Real Time: A Panel Study on Finnish”. Language Variation and Change 16(2), 75–92.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. “Early Modern English Lexis and Semantics”. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, 332–458.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Palander-Collin, Minna, and Säily, Tanja (eds.). 2018. Patterns of Change in 18th-Century English: A Sociolinguistic Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2017. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. 2nd ed. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Säily, Tanja, and Vartianen, Turo. 2020a. “Comparative Sociolinguistic Perspectives on the Rate of Linguistic Change”. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Säily, Tanja, Vartianen, Turo, Liimatta, Aatu, and Lijffijt, Jefrey. 2020b. “History of English as Punctuated Equilibria? A Meta-Analysis of the Rate of Linguistic Change in Middle English”. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6(2), 1–40.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, and Tissari, Heli. 2010. “Contextualising Eighteenth-Century Politeness: Social Distinction and Metaphorical Levelling”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133–58.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2014. “Syntactic Change: Between Universal Grammar and Fuzzy Grammar”. In Åfarli, Tor A., and Mæhlum, Brit (eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37–66.Google Scholar
OBC = The Old Bailey Corpus: Spoken English in the 18th and 19th Centuries. 2012. Compiled by Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus, Maiwald, Patrick, and Widlitzki, Bianca.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa. 2002. Preterite and Past Participle Forms in English 1680–1790: Standardisation Processes in Public and Private Writing. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th Century. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. [1891] 1978. “On Sound Change”. In Baldi, Philip, and Werth, Ronald N. (eds.), Readings in Historical Phonology: Chapters in the Theory of Sound Change. University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 3–22. [Originally published in Principles of the History of Language (London, 1891), 36–64, translated by H. A. Strong from the 2nd ed. of Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1886).]Google Scholar
Percy, Carol. 2002. “The Social Symbolism of Contractions and Colloquialisms in Contemporary Accounts of Dr Samuel Johnson: Bozzy, Piozzi, and the Authority of Intimacy”. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 2, n.p.Google Scholar
Percy, Carol. 2012. “Attitudes, Prescriptivism, and Standardization”. In Nevalainen, Terttu, and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 446–56.Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier, González-Álvarez, Dolores, Bueno-Alonso, Jorge L., and Rama-Martínez, Esperanza (eds.). 2007. “Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed”: New Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter, and Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. “The Real-Time Dynamics of the Individual and the Community in Grammaticalization”. Language 94(4), 867–901.Google Scholar
Phillipps, K. C. 1984. Language and Class in Victorian England. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pitman, Isaac. 1852. A Manual of Phonography, or, Writing by Sound: A Natural Method of Writing by Signs That Represent Spoken Sounds; Adapted to the English Language as a Complete System of Phonetic Shorthand. 9th ed. London: Fred Pitman.Google Scholar
Plonsky, Luke, and Oswald, Frederick L. 2017. “Multiple Regression as a Flexible Alternative to ANOVA in L2 Research”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39, 579–92.Google Scholar
Porter, G. R. 1912. The Progress of the Nation in Its Various Social and Economic Relations from the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. New ed. by Hirst, F. W.. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Potsma, Gertjan. 2017. “Modelling Transient States in Language Change”. In Mathieu, Éric, and Truswell, Robert (eds.), Micro-Change and Macro-Change in Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75–93.Google Scholar
Pratt, Lynda, and Denison, David. 2000. “The Language of the Southey–Coleridge Circle”. Language Sciences 22(3), 401–22.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rah, Anne, and Adone, Dany. 2010. “Processing of the Reduced Relative Clause versus Main Verb Ambiguity in L2 Learners at Different Proficiency Levels”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 79–109.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1988. “Variation and Historical Linguistics: A Survey of Methods and Concepts”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 89(2), 136–54.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1991. The Noun Phrase in Early Sixteenth-Century English: A Study Based on Sir Thomas More’s Writings. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2005. “Language Change in Adulthood: Historical Letters as Evidence”. European Journal of English Studies 9(1), 37–51.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, and Nurmi, Arja. 2011. “Grammaticalization and Language Change in the Individual”. In Narrog, Heiko, and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251–62.Google Scholar
Reuter, David. 2017. Newspapers, Politics, and Canadian English: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Selected Linguistic Variables in Early Nineteenth-Century Ontario Newspapers. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1975. “‘Strange and Inkhorne Tearmes’: Loan-Words as Style Markers in the Prose of Edward Hall, Thomas Elyot, Thomas More and Roger Ascham”. In Ringbom, Håkan (ed.), Style and Text: Studies Presented to Nils Erik Enkvist. Stockholm: Skriptor, 250–62.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1986. “Variation and the Study of English Historical Syntax”. In Sankoff, David (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 97–109.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1994. “The Position of Not in Early Modern English Questions”. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 339–48.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999a. “Syntax”. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–331.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999b. “Isn’t It? Or Is It Not? On the Order of Postverbal Subject and Negative Particle in the History of English”. In Tieken-Boon, van Ostade, Ingrid, Tottie, Gunnel, and van der Wurff, Wim, (eds.), Negation in the History of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 189–205.Google Scholar
Roberts, Gareth, and Sneller, Betsy. 2020. “Empirical Foundations for an Integrated Study of Language Evolution”. Language Dynamics and Change 10(2), 188–229.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2019. The English Phrasal Verb, 1650–Present: History, Stylistic Drifts, and Lexicalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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 and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 205–49.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2006. “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, 143–66.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. “Reflexive Structures”. In Rohdenburg, Günter, and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 166–181.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. “On the Problem of Syntactic Variation and Pragmatic Meaning in Sociolinguistic Theory”. Folia Linguistica 18, 409–37.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). 1998a. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1998b. “Introduction”. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–56.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 2016. “The Variationist Approach”. In Kytö, Merja, and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–35.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2007. “Emerging Variation: Determiner Genitives and Noun Modifiers in English”. English Language and Linguistics 11(1), 143–89.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2010. “How Synchronic Gradience Makes Sense in the Light of Language Change (and Vice Versa)”. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 149–79.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2019. “On the (Non-)Equivalence of Constructions with Determiner Genitives and Noun Modifiers in English”. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 759–96.Google Scholar
Rubenhold, Hallie. 2019. The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper. London: Transworld.Google Scholar
Rubery, Matthew. 2009. The Novelty of Newspapers: Victorian Fiction after the Invention of the News. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. “Watching English Grammar Change: A Case Study on Complement Selection in British and American English”. English Language and Linguistics 10(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1975. “Noun-Name Collocations in British English Newspaper Language”. Studia Neophilologica 47(1), 14–39.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1979. An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats, and Brorström, Sverker. 1987. The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English: With Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. “English Relative Clause Constructions”. Journal of Linguistics 33(2), 431–83.Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni. 2009. Language and Letters of the Bluestocking Network: Sociolinguistic Issues in Eighteenth-Century Epistolary English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian. 1999. “Orthography and Punctuation”. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–55.Google Scholar
Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina. 2018. English Compounds and Their Spelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 2013. “Longitudinal Studies”. In Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard, and Lucas, Ceil (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 261–79.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. [1916] 1986. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. by Harris, Roy. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schalck, Harry. 1988. “Fleet Street in the 1880s: The New Journalism”. In Wiener, Joel H. (ed.), Papers for the Millions: The New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914. New York, Westport, and London: Greenwood, 73–87.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. “The Conditional Subjunctive”. In Rohdenburg, Günter, and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 277–305.Google Scholar
Schneider, Kristina. 2002. The Development of Popular Journalism in England from 1700 to the Present: Corpus Compilation and Selective Stylistic Analysis. (PhD dissertation, University of Rostock, unpublished.)Google Scholar
Schwarz, Sarah. 2017. “‘Like Getting Nibbled to Death by a Duck’: Grammaticalization of the Get-Passive in the TIME Magazine Corpus”. English World-Wide 38(3), 305–35.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Sarah. 2018. Passive Voices: Be-, Get- and Prepositional Passives in Recent American English. (PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.)Google Scholar
Schwarz, Sarah. 2019. “Signs of Grammaticalization: Tracking the get-Passive through COHA”. In Claridge, Claudia, and Bös, Birte (eds.), Developments in English Historical Morpho-Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 199–221.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena, and Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2005. “On the Colloquialization of Scientific British and American English”. ESP across Cultures 2, 106–18.Google Scholar
Siemund, Rainer. 1995. “‘For Who the Bell Tolls’ – or Why Corpus Linguistics Should Carry the Bell in the Study of Language Change in Present-Day English”. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 20(2), 351–77.Google Scholar
Smakman, Dick, and Nekesa Barasa, Sandra. 2017. “Defining ‘Standard’: Towards a Cross-Cultural Definition of the Language Norm”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, and Percy, Carol (eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol and Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, 23–38.Google Scholar
Smith, Anthony. 1978. “The Long Road to Objectivity and Back Again: The Kinds of Truth We Get in Journalism”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 153–71.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2007. Sound Change and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy. 2015. “Introduction to Part IV”. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Kytö, Merja, Claridge, Claudia, and Smith, Jeremy (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–9.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas, and Rayson, Paul. 2007. “Recent Change and Variation in the British English Use of the Progressive Passive”. ICAME Journal 31, 129–59.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in 19th-Century English: A Process of Integration. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2006. “Partitive Constructions in Nineteenth-Century English”. In Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats, and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 242–71.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 and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 269–89.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2009. “Multal Adverbs in Nineteenth-Century English”. Studia Neophilologica 81(2), 121–44.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2012a. “Late Modern English: Sociolinguistics”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 952–65.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2012b. “Colloquialization and NOT-Contraction in Nineteenth-Century English”. In Markus, Manfred, Iyeiri, Yoko, Heuberger, Reinhard, and Chamson, Emil (eds.), Middle and Modern English Corpus Linguistics: A Multi-Dimensional Approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 191–206.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, 311–29.Google Scholar
Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Trueswell, John C., and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 1993. “Context Effects in Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution: Discourse and Semantic Influences in Parsing Reduced Relative Clauses”. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 47(2), 276–309.Google Scholar
Straaijer, Robin. 2018. “The Usage Guide: Evolution of a Genre”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed.), English Usage Guides: History, Advice, Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–30.Google Scholar
Ström Herold, Jenny, and Levin, Magnus. 2019. “The Obama Presidency, the Macintosh Keyboard and the Norway Fiasco: English Proper Noun Modifiers and Their German and Swedish Correspondences”. English Language and Linguistics 23(4), 827–54.Google Scholar
Sundby, Bertil, Bjørge, Anne Kari, and Haugland, Kari E. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700–1800. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, and Franco, Karlien. 2016. “Toward More Accountability: Modeling Ternary Genitive Variation in Late Modern English”. Language Variation and Change 28(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Hiltunen, Turo (eds.). 2019. Late Modern English Medical Texts: Writing Medicine in the Eighteenth Century. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, and Jucker, Andreas H. 2010. “Expressive Speech Acts and Politeness in Eighteenth-Century English”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Eighteenth-Century English: Ideology and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 159–181.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and Smith, Jennifer. 2002. “‘Either It Isn’t or It’s Not’: Neg/aux Contraction in British Dialects”. English World-Wide 23(2), 251–81.Google Scholar
Thim, Stefan. 2012. Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb–Particle Construction and Its History. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoms, Gary, Adger, David, Heycock, Caroline, and Smith, Jennifer. 2019. “Syntactic Variation and Auxiliary Contraction: The Surprising Case of Scots”. Language 95(3), 421–55.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1987. The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-Century English: A Sociohistorical-Linguistic Approach. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2009. An Introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2011. The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2012. “The Codification of English in England”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Standards of English: Codified Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–54.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2014a. In Search of Jane Austen: The Language of the Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2014b. “Eighteenth-Century English Normative Grammars and Their Readers”. In Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik, and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 129–50.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2020. Describing Prescriptivism: Usage Guides and Usage Problems in British and American English. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.). 2009. Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
TIME = TIME Magazine Corpus: 100 Million Words, 1920s–2000s. 2007–. Compiled by Davies, Mark.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. 2010. Why Do Languages Change? Revised by McColl Millar, Robert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. “From Subjectification to Intersubjectification”. In Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 124–39.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. “Identifying Micro-Changes in a Particular Linguistic Change-Type: The Case of Subjectification”. In Kytö, Merja, and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 376–89.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. “Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization: How Do They Intersect?” In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 19–44.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard L. C. 2004. “Diglossia in Anglo-Saxon England, or What Was Spoken Old English Like?” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 40, 87–110.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 4th ed. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2010. Investigations in Sociohistorical Linguistics: Stories of Colonisation and Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2020. “Sociolinguistic Typology and the Speed of Linguistic Change”. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 6(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
Upton, Clive, Parry, David, and Widdowson, J. D. A. 1994. Survey of English Dialects: The Dictionary and Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van de Pool, Nikki. 2016. The Development of the Absolute Construction in English: Between Bird’s Eye View and Magnifying Glass. (Doctoral thesis, KU Leuven, unpublished.)Google Scholar
Váradi, Tamás. 2001. “The Linguistic Relevance of Corpus Linguistics”. In Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew, and Khoja, Shereen (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, Lancaster University (UK), 29 March–2 April 2001. Special issue of UCREL Technical Papers 13, 587–93.Google Scholar
Varantola, Krista. 1984. On Noun Phrase Structures in Engineering English. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Varela Pérez, José Ramón. 2013. “Operator and Negative Contraction in Spoken British English: A Change in Progress”. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey, and Wallis, Sean (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256–85.Google Scholar
Vartianen, Turo, Nevala, Minna, and Hintikka, Marianna. 2017. “Linguistic Representations of the Social Margins in Early and Late Modern English”. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 3(2), 135–50.Google Scholar
Vincent, David. 1989. Literacy and Popular Culture: England 1750–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1963–73. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2003. “Cognitive Complexity and the Establishment of -ing Constructions with Retrospective Verbs in Modern English”. In Dossena, Marina, and Jones, Charles (eds.), Insights into Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, 197–220.Google Scholar
Wagner, Susanne. 2012. “Late Modern English: Dialects”. In Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 915–38.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. 2005. “The Ain’t Constraint: Not-Contraction in Early African American English”. Language Variation and Change 17, 1–17.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. 2010. Variation in Linguistic Systems. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walker, John. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. London.Google Scholar
Walker, Terry. 2007. Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wang, Ying. 2017. “Lexical Bundles in News Discourse 1784–1983”. In Palander-Collin, Minna, Ratia, Maura, and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Diachronic Developments in English News Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 97–116.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1997. “Extending the Paradigm: An Interpretation of the Historical Development of Auxiliary Sequences in English”. English Studies 78(2), 162–89.Google Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1990. “On the History of Grounding Markers in English Narrative: Style or Typology?” In Andersen, Henning, and Koerner, Konrad (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (8. ICHL). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 531–42.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith, and Labov, William. 1983. “Constraints on the Agentless Passive”. Journal of Linguistics 19, 29–58.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, and Herzog, Marvin I. 1968. “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change”. In Lehmann, W. P., and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium. Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 95–188.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. 1982. Accents of English. Vol. I: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit. 2017. “Gradience and Gradualness vs. Abruptness”. In Ledgeway, Adam, and Roberts, Ian (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 446–66.Google Scholar
Westergren Axelsson, Margareta. 1998. Contraction in British Newspapers in the Late 20th Century. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Westin, Ingrid. 2002. Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2018. “Using Diachronic Corpora to Understand the Connection between Genre and Language Change”. In Whitt, Richard J. (ed.), Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–15.Google Scholar
Whyte, Ian D. 2000. Migration and Society in Britain: 1550–1830. Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wiener, Joel H. 1988a. “Introduction”. In Wiener, Joel H. (ed.), Papers for the Millions: The New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914. New York, Westport, and London: Greenwood, xi–xix.Google Scholar
Wiener, Joel H. 1988b. “How New Was the New Journalism?” In Wiener, Joel H. (ed.), Papers for the Millions: The New Journalism in Britain, 1850s to 1914. New York, Westport, and London: Greenwood, 47–71.Google Scholar
Williams, Kevin. 2010. Read All about It! A History of the British Newspaper. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1978. “The Press and Popular Culture: An Historical Perspective”. In Boyce, George, Curran, James, and Wingate, Pauline (eds.), Newspaper History: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day. London: Constable, 41–50.Google Scholar
Willis, David. 2017. “Endogenous and Exogenous Theories of Syntactic Change”. In Ledgeway, Adam, and Roberts, Ian (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 491–514.Google Scholar
Xekalakis, Elefteria. 1999. Newspapers through the Times: Foreign Reports from the 18th to the 20th Centuries. (PhD dissertation, University of Zurich, unpublished.)Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah. 1997. “Contraction of Negatives as Evidence of Variance in Register-Specific Interactive Rules”. Language Variation and Change 9, 1–36.Google Scholar
Yaeger-Dror, Malcah, Hall-Lew, Lauren, and Deckert, Sharon. 2002. “It’s Not or Isn’t It? Using Large Corpora to Determine the Influences on Contraction Strategies”. Language Variation and Change 14, 79–118.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2014. Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2000. “Internal and External Forces in Language Change”. Language Variation and Change 12, 231–50.Google Scholar
Yang, Pi-Lan, and Shih, Su-Chin. 2013. “A Reading-Time Study of the Main Verb versus Reduced Relative Clause Ambiguity Resolution by English Learners in Taiwan”. Applied Psycholinguistics 34(6), 1,109–33.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983. “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English n’t”. Language 59(3), 502–13.Google Scholar