References

References

Auer, Anita, Daniel Schreier and Richard J. Watts
(eds.) 2015Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita
2015Stylistic variation. In Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds.), 133–155.Google Scholar
Austin, Frances
2004“Heaving this importunity”: The survival of opening formulas in letters in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Historical Sociolingistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 4, (accessed Jan 2019).Google Scholar
Barton, H. Arnold
1975Letters from the Promised Land: Swedes in America, 1840-1914. N. pl.: University of Minnesota Press and Swedish Pioneer Historical Society.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C.
2004English in Modern Times 1700-1945. London: Arnold Hodder.Google Scholar
Bonness, Dania Jovana
2016‘There is a great many Irish Settlers here’: Exploring Irish English diachronically using emigrant letters in the Corpus of Irish English Correspondence (CORIECOR). Ph.D dissertation. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Bridge, Kathryn
2017In the name of education. In Michelle van der Merwe (ed.) The Language of Family: stories of bonds and belonging, 23–28. Victoria, BC: Royal BC Museum.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Rena Torres Cacoullos
2015Grammaticalization and variation of will and shall in Shakespeare’s comedies. In Torres Cacoullos, Dion and Lapierre (eds.), 131–145.Google Scholar
Cameron, Wendy and Mary McDougall Maude
(eds.) 2000Assisting Emigration to Upper Canada: the Petworth Project, 1832-1837. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, Wendy, Sheila Haines, Mary McDougall Maude
(eds) 2000English Immigrant Voices: labourers’ letters from Upper Canada in the 1830s. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K.
1998English: Canadian varieties. In: John Edwards (ed.). Language in Canada. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 252–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. and Peter Trudgill
1991Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
1982Variation in an English Dialect: a Sociolinguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2010The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810-2009. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coha/.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan
2004Historical corpus compilation and ‘philological computing’ vs. ‘philological outsourcing’: a LModE test case. VIEWS. 13(2): 3–23. http://​archiv​-anglistik​.univie​.ac​.at​/fileadmin​/user​_upload​/dep​_anglist​/weitere​_Uploads​/Views​/0402ALL​.pdf (9 June 2017).Google Scholar
2006The modal auxiliaries HAVE TO and MUST in the Corpus of Early Ontario English: gradience and colonial lag. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 51(2+3): 287–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007The importance of demography for the study of historical Canadian English: three examples from the Corpus of Early Ontario English. In: Javier Pérez-Guerra, Dolores González-Álvarez, Jorge L. Bueno-Alonso and Esperanza Rama-Martínez (eds) ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New Insights into Late Modern English, 105–136. Bern: Peter Lang (= Linguistic Insights, 28).Google Scholar
2008aColonial variation in the Late Modern English business letter: ‘periphery and core’ or ‘random variation’?. In: Marina Dossena and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds) Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: methodology and data, 257–287. Bern: Peter Lang (= Linguistic Insights, 76).Google Scholar
2008bNew-Dialect Formation in Canada: evidence from the English modal auxiliaries. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series, 97), CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Written sources of Canadian English: Phonetic Reconstruction and the Low-Back Vowel Merger. In: Varieties of English in Writing: The Written Word as Linguistic Evidence, ed. by Raymond Hickey, 197–222. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Canadian English: a conservative variety? Zeitschrift für Kanada-Studien [Journal of Canadian Studies, Germany] 35: 25–44.Google Scholar
2016On the regrettable dichotomy between philology and linguistics: historical lexicography and historical linguistics as test cases. In Don Chapman, Colette Moore and Miranda Wilcox (eds) Studies in the History of English VII: generalizing vs. particularizing methodologies in historical linguistic analysis, 61–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina
2016Advice to prospectors (and others): knowledge dissemination, power and persuasion in Late Modern English emigrants’ guides and correspondence. In Cinzia Russi (ed.) Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics 67–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade
(eds) 2008Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
Elliott, Bruce S., David A. Gerber and Suzanne M. Sinke
(eds.) 2006Letters Across Borders: the epistolary practices of international migrants. New York: Palgrave Macmillan published in association with the Carleton Centre for the History of Migration. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth and Wim Vandenbussche
(eds.) 2007Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony
2015Language in print and handwriting, In: Auer, Scheier and Watts, 53–71.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan
2009The sociopragmatics of a lovers spat: the case of the eighteenth-century courtship letters of Mary Pierrepont and Edward Wortley. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2): 215–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, David
2006Irish emigration and the art of letter-writing. In Letters across Broders: the epistolary practices of international migrants, ed. by Bruce S. Elliott, David A. Gerber and Suzanne M. Sinke, 97–106. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Charles C.
1925The periphrastic future with shall and will in Modern English. PMLA 40: 963–1024. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giltrow, Janet
2009 ‘Curious gentlemen’: the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Royal Society, business and science in the eighteenth century. In: Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne, and Larissa Yousoubova (eds) Writing in Knowledge Societies, West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio
2003Pragmatic uses of shall and will for future time reference in Early Modern English. In English Modality in Context: diachronic perspectives, 108–170. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Havinga, Anna D.
2018Invisibilising Austrian German: on the effect of linguistic prescriptions and educational reforms on writing practices in 18th-century Austria. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, Tim, Robert Shoemaker, Clive Emsley, Sharon Howard and Jamie McLaughlin
(eds) 2012The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674–1913 (www​.oldbaileyonline​.org, version 7.0 24 March 2012).Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus, Maiwald, Patrick, Widlitzki, Bianca
(eds.) 2012The Old Bailey Corpus: spoken English in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. www​.uni​-giessen​.de​/oldbaileycorpus [30 June 2017].Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja
1991Variation in Diachrony, with early American English in Focus: studies on CAN/MAY and SHALL/WILL. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko
2015Early nineteenth-century pauper letters. In: Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds.), 185–201.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian
(1997) The spread of the going-to-future in written English: a corpus-based investigation into language change in progress. In Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday, ed. by Raymond Hickey, & Stanislaw Puppel, 1537–1543. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCafferty, Kevin and Carolina P. Amador-Moreno
2014‘[The Irish] find much difficulty in these auxiliaries … putting will for shall with the first person’: the decline of first-person shall in Ireland, 1760–1890. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 407–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Rakesh M. Bhatt
2008World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael
1995The linguistic value of Ulster emigrant letters. Ulster Folklife 41: 26–41.Google Scholar
1997A tale of two Georges: the language of Irish Indian traders in colonial North America. In Jeffrey Kallen (ed.) Focus on Ireland, 227–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael, Janet M. Fuller and Sharon DeMarse
1993‘The black men has wieves and Sweet harts [and third person plural –s] Jes like the white men’: evidence from verbal –s from written documents on nineteenth-century African American speech. Language Variation and Change 5: 335–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Percy, Carol
2006Writing from the asylum: Martha Shakespear Lloyd at the linguistic limits of eighteenth-century femininity. Women’s Writing 13(1): 83–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas
2015Archaism and dialect in Irish emigrant letters. In: Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds.), 223–239.Google Scholar
Reuter, David. M.
2017Newspapers, Politics, and Canadian English: a corpus-based analysis of selected linguistic variables in early nineteenth-century Ontario newspapers. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and Marijke J. van der Wal
2014Letters as Loot: a sociolinguistic approach to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W.
2002Investigating variation and change in written documents. In Peter Trudgill, J. K. Chambers and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. 67–96.Google Scholar
Taglicht, J.
1970The genesis of the conventional rules for the use of. shall and will English Studies 51: 193–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostad, Ingrid, Ingrid
1985‘I will be drowned and no man shall save me’: the conventional rules for shall and will in eighteenth-century English grammars. English Studies 66(2): 123–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, Nathalie Dion and André Lapierre
(eds.) 2015Linguistic Variation: confronting fact and theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2004New Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter and J. K. Chambers
(eds.) 1991 Dialects of English: studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Van Bergen, Linda and David Denison
2007A corpus of late eighteenth-century prose. In Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan and Hermann Moisl (eds) Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora: Vol. 2, diachronic databases, 228–246. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van der Merwe, Michelle
(ed.) 2017The Language of Family: stories of bonds and belonging. Victoria, BC: Royal BC Museum.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard
2015Setting the scene: letters, standards and historical sociolinguistics. In: Auer, Schreier and Watts (eds), 1–13.Google Scholar