Cover not available
Part of
Patterns of Change in 18th-century English: A sociolinguistic approach
Edited by Terttu Nevalainen, Minna Palander-Collin and Tanja Säily
[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 8] 2018
► pp. 271–294

References

Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Aarts, Bas, Joanne Close & Sean Wallis. 2010. Recent changes in the use of the progressive construction in English. In Bert Cappelle & Naoaki Wada (eds.), Distinctions in English grammar: Offered to Renaat Declerck, 48–167. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas, Maria José López-Couso & Belén Méndez-Naya. 2012. Late Modern English syntax. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel Brinton (eds.), Historical linguistics of English, vol. 2, 869–887. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia. 1989. With double tongue: Diglossia, stylistics and the teaching of English. In Michael Short (ed.), Reading, analysing and teaching literature, 204–240. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1999. Literary language. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776, 539–653. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Prescribed reading: Pronouns and gender in the eighteenth century. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 7. [URL].Google Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Karen. 2000. Productivity in English nominal and adjectival derivation, 1100–2000. Perth: University of Western Australia PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2012. Clumsy, awkward or having a peculiar propriety? Prescriptive judgements and language change in the 19th century. Language Sciences 34(1). 28–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Language between description and prescription: Verb categories in nineteenth-century grammars of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ando, Sadao. 1976. A descriptive syntax of Christopher Marlowe’s language. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Apcar, Amy (ed.). 1918. Life and adventures of Emin Joseph Emin, 1726–1809. Calcutta: The Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar
Ard, Josh. 1982. Auxiliary do: Support or emphasis? Linguistics 20. 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argamon, Shlomo, Moshe Koppel, Jonathan Fine & Anat Rachel Shimoni. 2003. Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text 23(3). 321–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arkell, Tom. 2006. Illuminations and distortions: Gregory King’s scheme calculated for the year 1688 and the social structure of later Stuart England. The Economic History Review N.S. 59. 32–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnaud, René. 1973. La forme progressive en Anglais du XIXe siècle. Lille: Service de Reproduction de Thèses Université Lille III.Google Scholar
. 1998. The development of the progressive in 19th century English: A quantitative study. Language Variation and Change 10(2). 123–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Letter-writers of the Romantic Age and the modernization of English: A quantitative historical survey of the progressive. [URL]. (2007.)Google Scholar
Auer, Anita. 2008. The letter which that I wrote: Self-corrections in Late Modern English letters. In Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Studies in Late Modern English correspondence: Methodology and data (Linguistic Insights Studies in Language and Communication 76), 213–234. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita & Victorina González-Díaz. 2005. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism in English: A re-evaluation of its effects on actual language usage. Multilingua 24(4). 317–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, Frances. 1973. Epistolary conventions in the Clift family correspondence. English Studies 54. 9–22, 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. The Clift family correspondence 1792–1846. Sheffield: CECTAL.Google Scholar
. 1994. The effect of exposure to Standard English: The language of William Clift. In Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800, 285–313. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2000. Letter writing in a Cornish community in the 1790s. In David Barton & Nigel Hall (eds.), Letter writing as a social practice, 43–61. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Authorized Version = The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, translated out of the original tongues: And with the former translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty’s special command. Authorized King James version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL]. (15 June, 2013.)Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bækken, Bjørg. 1998. Word order patterns in Early Modern English with special reference to the position of the subject and the finite verb (Studia Anglistica Norvegica 9). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica XX. 107–128.Google Scholar
. 2002. Yet this follie doth many times assault the brauest minds: Affirmative declarative do in 17th-century English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 1. 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Word order in 17th century English. A study of the stabilisation of the XSV pattern (Studia Anglistica Norvegica 12). Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Baeskow, Heike. 2012. -Ness and ‑ity: Phonological exponents of n or meaningful nominalizers of different adjectival domains? Journal of English Linguistics 40(1). 6–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Richard W. 2010. Variation and change in eighteenth-century English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change, 182–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baines, Paul. 2004. The long 18th century. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Baker, Robert. 1770. Remarks on the English language, in the nature of Vaugelas’s remarks on the French. London.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles. 1976. Early Modern English. London: André Deutch.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological productivity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bax, Randy C. 2005. Traces of Johnson in the language of Fanny Burney. International Journal of English Studies 5(1). 159–181.Google Scholar
2008. Foolish, foolisher, foolishest: Eighteenth-century English grammars and the comparison of adjectives. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 279–288. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baxter, Gareth & William Croft. 2016. Modeling language change across the lifespan: Individual trajectories in community change. Language Variation and Change 28(2). 129–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayly, Anselm. 1758. An introduction to languages, literary and philosophical. London.Google Scholar
. 1772. A plain and complete grammar of the English language. London.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in modern times 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Carmela Nocera & Massimo Sturiale (eds.). 2008. Perspectives on prescriptivism. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Yoav & Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57(1). 289–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2004. Address pronouns in Late Middle English. In Alicia Rodríguez-Alvarez & Francisco Alonso-Almeida (eds.), Voices on the past: Studies in Old and Middle English language and literature, 127–138. Coruna: Netbiblo.Google Scholar
. 2005. Social networks and historical sociolinguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–98. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Yves. 2014. Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(2). 164–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Dimensions of register variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Dimensions of variation among 18th-century speech-based and written registers. In Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres (Anglistische Forschungen 298), 89–109. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about registers and genres? In Anne O’Keeffe & Michael McCarthy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 241–254. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52), 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bingham, William. 1867. A grammar of the English language: For the use of schools and academies. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Black, Jeremy. 2008. Eighteenth-century Britain, 1688–1783, 2nd edn. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, Joseph et al. (eds.). 2006. The broadview anthology of British literature: The restoration and the eighteenth century. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Norman F. 1992. The literary language. In Norman F. Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 500–541. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1948. On defining the morpheme. Word 4. 18–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. The in-group: One and its compounds. In P. A. Reich (ed.), The second LACUS forum 1975, 229–237. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Bonnell, Thomas F. 2009. The reprint trade. In Michael F. Suarez & Michael L. Turner (eds.), The Cambridge history of the book in Britain, vol. 5, 1695–1830, 699–709. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boulton, Jeremy. 2000. London 1540–1700. In Peter Clark (ed.), The Cambridge history of urban Britain, vol. 2, 1540–1840, 315–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braaten, Björn. 1967. Notes on continuous tenses in English. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap 21. 167–180.Google Scholar
Brant, Clare. 2006. Eighteenth-century letters and British culture. London & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav & Miriam Meyerhoff. 2014. Significant or random? A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(1). 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brightland, John & Charles Gildon. 1711. A grammar of the English tongue. London.Google Scholar
Brittain, Lewis. 1788. Rudiments of English grammar. Louvain.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Emmanuel Keuleers & Boris New. 2011. Assessing the usefulness of Google Books’ word frequencies for psycholinguistic research on word processing. Frontiers in Psychology 2, 27. doi: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, James. 1770. A plan of an English grammar-school education. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Burke, Peter. 2000. A civil tongue: Language and politeness in Early Modern Europe. In Peter Burke, Brian Harrison & Paul Slack (eds.), Civil histories: Essays presented to Sir Keith Thomas, 31–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burles, Edward. 1652. Grammatica Burlesa, or a new English grammar. (Facsimile edition, R. C. Alston (ed.) English linguistics 1500–1800. Menston: Scolar Press, 1971.)Google Scholar
Burn, John. 1766. A practical grammar of the English language. Glasgow.Google Scholar
Burnley, David. 2003. The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107), 27–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byrne, Muriel St Clare. 1964. The foundations of Elizabethan language. In Allardyce Nicoll (ed.), Shakespeare in his own age (Shakespeare Survey 17), 223–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, George. 1776. The philosophy of rhetoric […]. Volume 1. London: printed for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell, in the Strand; and W. Creech at Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Cannadine, David. 2000. Class in Britain. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Card, William, Raven I. McDavid Jr., & Virginia McDavid. 1984. Dimensions of usage and dictionary labelling. Journal of English Linguistics 17. 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carretta, Vincent. 2004. Sancho, (Charles) Ignatius (1729?–1780). Oxford dictionary of national biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, Philip. 2001. Men and the emergence of polite society, 1660–1800. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
CEEC = Corpora of Early English Correspondence. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg et al. at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. [URL]. (5 May, 2014.)
CEECE = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Mikko Laitinen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Tanja Säily and Anni Sairio at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.
Chambers, J. K. 2009. Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significance. Revised edition. Chichester & Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2013. Grammaticalisation in social context: The emergence of a new English pronoun. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(5). 608–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Merja Kytö. 2014. I had lost sight of them then for a bit, but I went on pretty fast: Two degree modifiers in the Old Bailey Corpus. In Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker & Jukka Tuominen (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 29–52. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 2004. Women, men, and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language, 3rd edn. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
COCA = Davies, Mark. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990–present. Available online at [URL].
Cohen, Michèle. 2006. ‘A little learning’: The curriculum and the construction of gender difference in the long eighteenth century. British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 29(3). 321–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo. 2012. The role of social networks and mobility in diachronic sociolinguistics. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 332–352. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CoRD = Corpus Resource Database. Compiled by the Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki. [URL].
Coote, Charles. 1788. Elements of the grammar of the English language. London.Google Scholar
Corfield, Penelope J. 1991. Class by name and number in eighteenth-century Britain. In Penelope J. Corfield (ed.), Language, history and class, 101–130. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cowie, Claire. 1999. Diachronic word-formation: A corpus-based study of derived nominalizations in the history of English. Cambridge: University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Uncommon terminations”: Proscription and morphological productivity. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15(1). 17–30.Google Scholar
Cressy, David. 1980. Literacy and society in England and beyond. In David Cressy (ed.), Literacy and the social order. Reading and writing in Tudor and Stuart England, 175–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Minna Nevala. 2012 Sociocultural processes and the history of English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 365–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra, Bill Haddican, Hazel Richards, Sali A. Tagliamonte & Ann Taylor. 2013. Asymmetrical trajectories: The past and present of ‑body/‑one . Language Variation and Change 25(3). 287–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Torsten. 1956. Linguistic studies in some Elizabethan writings. II The auxiliary do. Acta Jutlandica XXVIII. 3–104.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1994. Productive or not productive? The Romance element in Middle English derivation. In Francisco Fernández, Miguel Fuster & Juan José Calvo (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992: Papers from the 7th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Valencia, 22–26 September 1992 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113), 247–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation (Topics in English Linguistics 20). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danchev, Andrej. 1992. The evidence for analytic and synthetic developments in English. In Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 25–41. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daunton, M. S. 1995. Progress and poverty: An economic and social history of Britain 1700–1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2011–. Google Books Corpus. Based on Google Books n-grams (Michel et al.. 2011). [URL].Google Scholar
. 2012. Some methodological issues related to corpus-based investigations of recent syntactic changes in English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 157–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Making Google Books n-grams useful for a wide range of research on language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(3). 401–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daybell, James (ed.). 2001. Early modern women’s letter writing, 1450–1700. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Women letter-writers in Tudor England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 45–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1998. Syntax. In Suzanne Romaine (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, IV: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Log(ist)ic and simplistic S-curves. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.). 2003. Germanic standardizations: Past to present (Impact: Studies in Language and Society 18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickens, Charles. 1859. A tale of two cities. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen, Hendrik De Smet & Jukka Tyrkkö. 2011. A European database of descriptors of English electronic texts. The European English Messenger 19. 21–35.Google Scholar
Dilworth, Thomas. 1751. A new guide to the English tongue. 13th edn. London.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina (ed.). 2014. Transatlantic perspectives on Late Modern English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dossena, Marina, John G. Newman & Sylwester Łodej (eds.). 2014. Token: A Journal of English Linguistics (Volume 3): Special issue on Late Modern English.Google Scholar
Dryden, John. 1672a. The conquest of Granada by the Spaniards in two parts. London: T. N. for Henry Herringman.Google Scholar
. 1672b. Defence of the Epilogue to ‘The conquest of Granada’. London.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. 1731. A new English grammar. London.Google Scholar
ECEG = Eighteenth-Century English Grammars database . 2010. Compiled by Nuria Yáñez-Bouza (Manchester) and María E. Rodríguez-Gil (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria). [URL]. (September 2012.)Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2012. Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology 41. 87–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Paul & Polly Rewt (eds.). 1994. The letters of Ignatius Sancho. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do, the establishment and regulation of its use in English (Gothenburg Studies in English 2). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elphinson, James. 1765. The principles of the English language digested. London.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan. 2012. Between linguistic creativity and formulaic restriction: Cross-linguistic perspectives on nineteenth-century lower class writers’ private letters. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 45–64. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.). 2007. Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000) (Studia Linguistica Germanica 86). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emsley, Clive, Tim Hitchcock & Robert Shoemaker. 2013. London history: A population history of London. Old Bailey proceedings online. [URL], version 7.0. (13 May, 2013.)Google Scholar
Fairman, Tony. 2012. Letters in mechanically-schooled language. Theories and ideologies. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 205–227. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Language in print and handwriting. In Anita Auer, Daniel Schreier & Richard J. Watts (eds.), Letter writing and language change, 53–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farnworth, Richard. 1655. The pure language of the spirit of truth set forth for the confounding false languages; acted out of pride, ambition and deceit, or, thee and thou in its place is the proper language to any single person whatsoever: Proved by severall examples, etc. London.Google Scholar
Farro, Daniel. 1754. The royal universal British grammar and vocabulary. London.Google Scholar
Feather, John. 1985. The provincial book trade in eighteenth-century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fell, John. 1784. An essay towards an English grammar. London.Google Scholar
Fenning, Daniel. 1771. A new grammar of the English language; or an easy introduction to the art of speaking and writing English with propriety and correctness: […]. London: printed for S. Crowder.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles. 1996. Variation and drift: Loss of agreement in Germanic. In T. Huebner (ed.), Sociolinguistic perspectives: Papers on language in society, 1959–1994, 241–260. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 2003. More on the English progressive and the Celtic connection. In Hildegard Tristram (ed.), The Celtic Englishes III, 150–168. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku & Juhani Klemola. 2012. English in contact: Celtic and Celtic Englishes. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel Brinton (eds.), English historical linguistics, vol. 2, 1687–1703. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1998. English grammar and usage. In Suzanne Romaine (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, 1776–1997, vol. IV, 536–588. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward & Douglas Biber. 2001. Register variation and social dialect variation: The Register Axiom. In Penelope Eckert & John R. Rickford (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 235–267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Finkenstaedt, Thomas. 1963. You und thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Michael. 2004. Counterflows to colonialism: Indian travellers and settlers in Britain, 1600–1857. Ohio: Oberlin College.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 1998. The commerce of language in the pursuit of politeness in eighteenth-century England. English Studies 79. 309–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The Spectator, the politics of social networks, and language standardisation in eighteenth-century England. In Laura Wright (ed.), The development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts, 195–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The meanings and uses of the progressive construction in an early eighteenth-century English network. In Anne Curzan & Kimberly Emmons (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language II, 131–173. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Social factors and language change in eighteenth-century England: The case of negative concord. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113. 293–321.Google Scholar
Fogg, Peter W. 1792–96. Elementa Anglicana; or, the principles of English grammar displayed and exemplified. 2 vols. London.Google Scholar
Fogg, Peter Walkden. 1796. Elementa Anglicana. Stockport.Google Scholar
Forgeng, Jeffrey L. 2007. Daily life in Stuart England. Westwood, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Fox, George, John Stubs & Benjamin Furley. 1660. A battle-door for teachers & professors to learn singular & plural; you to many, and thou to one. London.Google Scholar
Frank, Thomas. 1985. The rise of do-support in Early Modern English: A reappraisal. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 10. 1–29.Google Scholar
Friginal, Eric & Jack A. Hardy. 2014. Corpus-based sociolinguistics: A guide for students. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friginal, Eric, Marsha Walker & Janet Beth Randall. 2014. Exploring mega-corpora: Google Ngram Viewer and the Corpus of Historical American English. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 1(1). 48–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gachelin, Jean-Marc. 1997. The progressive and habitual aspects in non-standard Englishes. In Edgar Werner Schneider (ed.), Englishes Around the World, vol. 1, 33–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Anne. 2013. Derivation in Middle English: Regional and text type variation. Zurich: University of Zurich PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Gerner, Jürgen. 1996. Untersuchungen zur Funktion des emphatischen do im Englischen . Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gil, Alexander. 1619. Logonomia Anglica. London: J. Beale.Google Scholar
González-Díaz, Victorina. 2008. On normative grammarians and the double marking of degree. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 289–310. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Google. 2013a. Google Books Ngram Viewer. [URL].
. 2013b. About Ngram Viewer. [URL].
Görlach, Manfred. 1988. The study of Early Modern English variation – the Cinderella of English historical linguistics? In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical dialectology, regional and social, 211–228. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Eighteenth-century English (Sprachwissenschaftliche Studienbücher). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Greaves, Paul. 1594. Grammatica Anglicana. London. (Facsimile edition, R. C. Alston (ed.) English linguistics 1500–1800. Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Greenwood, James. 1722 [1711]. An essay towards a practical English grammar, […], 2nd edn. London: printed for John Clark.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter. 2011. The science of pronominal usage: He and it in conference to inanimate entities in Late Middle English texts on alchemy. Journal of English Linguistics 39(4). 335–358.Google Scholar
Hammond, Samuel. 1750. A new introduction to learning; or, a sure guide to the English pronunciation and orthography. Nottingham: Creswell.Google Scholar
Hay, Douglas & Nicholas Rogers. 1997. Eighteenth-century English society: Shuttles and swords. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helsinki Corpus = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English).Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010a. Timeline for the eighteenth century. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change, 139–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2010b. Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Early English and the Celtic hypothesis. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinneburg, Alexander, Heikki Mannila, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2007. How to handle small samples: Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22. 137–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodson, Jane. 2008. Joseph Priestley’s two Rudiments of English grammar: 1761 and 1768. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 177–190. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holmes, George & Daniel Szechi. 1993. The age of oligarchy. Pre-industrial Britain 1722–1783. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet & Miriam Meyerhoff. 2005. Different voices, different views: An introduction to current research in language and gender. In Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The handbook of language and gender, 1–17. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, Erik. 1922. On the history of the English present inflections, particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Honegger, Thomas. 2003. ‘And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete, thanne preye I thee, […].’: Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale . In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107), 61–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hope, Jonathan. 1993. Second person singular pronouns in records of early modern ‘spoken’ English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94(1). 83–100.Google Scholar
Horne Tooke, John. 1798. The diversions of Purley, vol. 1. 2nd edn. London.Google Scholar
Hornsey, John. 1793. A short English grammar in two parts: Simplified to the capacities of children. York.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Anneli Meurman-Solin & Arja Nurmi (eds.), Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL].Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1996. Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8(1). 47–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Geoffrey Leech. 2012. “Small is beautiful”: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 175–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Christian Mair. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2). 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, Ossi. 1976. Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen LXXVII. 608–622.Google Scholar
. 1982. On the notion “possible grammatical change”: A look at a perfectly good change that did not quite make it. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 15. 3–11.Google Scholar
. 1994. The dialects of England since 1776. In Robert Burchfield (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. V: English in Britain and overseas: Origins and developments, 197–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Immel, Andrea. 2009. Children’s books and school books. In Michael F. Suarez & Michael L. Turner (eds.), The Cambridge history of the book in Britain, vol. 5, 1695–1830, 736–749. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joby, Chris. 2014. Third-person singular zero in the Norfolk dialect: A re-assessment. Folia Linguistica Historica 35. 135–172.Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language, vol. 2. London.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2016. Enregisterment: How linguistic items become linked with ways of speaking. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 632–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Hugh. 1724. An accidence to the English tongue. London.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 2000a. History of English and English historical linguistics. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett.Google Scholar
2000b. Thou in the history of English: A case for historical semantics or pragmatics? In Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Nikolaus Ritt (eds.), Words: Structure, meaning, function: A festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky, 153–163. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H., Irma Taavitsainen & Gerold Schneider. 2012. Semantic corpus trawling: Expressions of “courtesy” and “politeness” in the Helsinki Corpus. In Carla Suhr & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Developing corpus methodology for historical pragmatics (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 11). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL].Google Scholar
Kaislaniemi, Samuli. 2006. The Corpus of Early English Correspondence Extension and Supplement. Poster presented at ICAME 27 (the 27th conference of the International Computer Archive for Medieval and Modern English), 24–28 May, Espoo, Finland. Available on CoRD: [URL].
Kampstra, Peter. 2008. Beanplot: A boxplot alternative for visual comparison of distributions. Journal of Statistical Software 28. Code Snippet 1, [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kekäläinen, Kirsti. 1971. Aspects of style and language in the English and Scottish popular ballads. Helsinki: University of Helsinki licentiate thesis.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 1996. Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change 8. 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2001. Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6(1). 97–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2004. Subjectivity and the English progressive. English Language and Linguistics 8(1). 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirkby, John. 1746. A new English grammar, or, guide to the English tongue, with notes. London: for R. Manby & H. S. Coy (Facs. ed. Menston: Scolar, 1971, EL 297).Google Scholar
Klein, Lawrence E. 1994. “Politeness” as linguistic ideology in late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England. In Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800, 31–50. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002. Politeness and the interpretation of the British eighteenth century. The Historical Journal 45. 869–898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleiner, Brian & Dennis R. Preston. 1997. Discourse disputes: How come you do do like you do. Folia Linguistica 31. 105–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knox, Vicesimus. 1789. Liberal education, 10th edn., 2 vols. London.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36. 15–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koplenig, Alexander. 2017. The impact of lacking metadata for the measurement of cultural and linguistic change using the Google Ngram data sets: Reconstructing the composition of the German corpus in times of WWII. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 32(1). 169–188.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2008. Subjective progressives in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English. Secondary grammaticalization as a process of objectification. In Marina Dossena, Richard Dury & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), vol. 1, 241–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2010. The progressive in Modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 72). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurki, Tommi. 2005. Yksilön ja ryhmän kielen reaaliaikainen muuttuminen: Kielenmuutosten seuraamisesta ja niiden tarkastelussa käytettävistä menetelmistä [Real-time language change of group and individual: On following linguistic changes in apparent time and real time, and on the methods used in the study of language change]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1993. Third-person present singular verb inflection in early British and American English. Language Variation and Change 5. 113–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(comp.). 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Coding conventions and lists of source texts, 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Matti Rissanen. 1997. Introduction: Language analysis and diachronic corpora. In Raymond Hickey, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Tracing the trail of time: Proceedings from the second Diachronic Corpora workshop, 9–22. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1978 [1972]. Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors (Language in Society 20). Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors (Language in Society 29). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors (Language in Society 39). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Lea & Taru Nordlund. 2012. Performing identities and interaction through epistolary formulae. In Marina Dossena & Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds.), Letter writing in Late Modern Europe, 65–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. 2002. Extending the Corpus of Early English Correspondence to the 18th century. Helsinki English Studies 2. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2007a. Explaining present-day variation: Agreement patterns of he and they with singular antecedents. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108(4). 537–562.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Agreement patterns in English. Diachronic corpus studies on common-number pronouns. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
. 2009. Singular you was/you were variation and English normative grammars in the eighteenth century. In Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), The language of daily life in England (1400–1800), 199–217. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langford, Paul. 1998 [1989]. A polite and commercial people: England, 1727–1783. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. The uses of eighteenth-century politeness. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 12. 311–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger (ed.). 1999a. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1999b. Phonology and morphology. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776, 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1993. 100 million words of English. English Today 9(1). 9–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Nicholas Smith. 2005. Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal 29. 83–98.Google Scholar
Lijffijt, Jefrey. 2013. Computational methods for comparison and exploration of event sequences. Helsinki: Aalto University PhD dissertation. [URL].Google Scholar
Lijffijt, Jefrey, Terttu Nevalainen, Tanja Säily, Panagiotis Papapetrou, Kai Puolamäki & Heikki Mannila. 2016. Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(2). 374–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lijffijt, Jefrey, Tanja Säily & Terttu Nevalainen. 2012. CEECing the baseline: Lexical stability and significant change in a historical corpus. In Jukka Tyrkkö, Matti Kilpiö, Terttu Nevalainen & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Outposts of historical corpus linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a proliferation of resources (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL].Google Scholar
Lin, Yuri, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Erez Lieberman Aiden, Jon Orwant, Will Brockman & Slav Petrov. 2012. Syntactic annotations for the Google Books Ngram Corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations, 169–174. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lindert, Peter H. & Jeffrey G. Williamson. 1982. Revising England’s social tables 1688–1812. Explorations in Economic History 19. 385–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, Mark & Mark Aronoff. 2013. Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Morphology in Toulouse: Selected proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 51). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. Anthony. 2004. A sociolinguistic history of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2002. The loss of the indefinite pronoun man. Syntactic change and information structure. In Teresa Fanego, María José López-Couso & Javier Perez-Guerra (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000, 181–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Loughton, William. 1734. A practical grammar of the English tongue. London.Google Scholar
. 1744. A practical grammar of the English tongue, 4th edn. London.Google Scholar
Lowe, Solomon. 1737. English grammar reformd into a small compass and easy method for the readier learning and better understanding of the English tongue. London.Google Scholar
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A short introduction to English grammar: With critical notes. London.Google Scholar
. 1763. A short introduction to English grammar: With critical notes, 2nd edn. Dublin: Saunders.Google Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1998. The interplay of external and internal factors in morphological restructuring: The case of you . In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics (1996), 189–210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, H. B. & D. R. Whitney. 1947. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 18(1). 50–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mannila, Heikki, Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2013. Quantifying variation and estimating the effects of sample size on the frequencies of linguistic variables. In Manfred Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 337–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach, 2nd edn. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Martin, Benjamin. 1754. An introduction to the English language and learning in three parts. London.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1964. Elements of general linguistics. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Martínez-Insua, Ana E. & Javier Pérez-Guerra. 2006. ‘There’s Bjørg’: On there-sentences in the recent history of English. In Leiv Egil Breivik, Sandra Halverson & Kari E. Haugland (eds.), ‘These things I write vnto thee …’ Essays in honour of Bjørg Bækken, 189–211. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, M. L. Samuels & Michael Benskin. 1986. A linguistic atlas of Late Mediaeval English, vol. I. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Carey. 1986. Common and courtly language: The stylistics of social class in 18th-century British literature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. The evolution of English prose 1700–1800: Style, politeness, and print culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. British English in the long eighteenth century (1660–1830). In Haruko Momma & Michael Matto (eds.), Blackwell companion to the history of the English language, 228–234. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, Lister. 1771. The rudiments of the English tongue; or, the principles of English grammar, […], 2nd edn. Newcastle: printed by T. Saint, for J. Wilkie, London.Google Scholar
Michael, Ian. 1970. English grammatical categories and the tradition to 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. The teaching of English from the sixteenth century to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The hyperactive production of English grammars in the nineteenth century: A speculative bibliography. Publishing History 41. 23–61.Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray, The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, et al.. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014). 176–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English (Language in Society 19). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 2012 [1985]. Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation, 4th edn. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minugh, David. 1999. What aileth thee, to print so curiously? Archaic forms and contemporary newspaper language. In Irma Taavitsainen, Gunnel Melchers & Päivi Pahta (eds.), Writing in non-standard English, 47–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moore, Colette. 2002. Writing good Southerne: Local and supralocal norms in the Plumpton letter collection. Language Variation and Change 14. 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossé, Fernand 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, Lynda. 2003 [1995]. ‘Talking proper’: The rise of accent as social symbol, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Munck, Thomas. 2000. The enlightenment: A comparative social history 1721–1794. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Murray, Lindley. 1795. English grammar: Adapted to the different classes of learners. London.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. 1: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2002. Your moder sent a letter to the: Pronouns of address in private correspondence from Late Middle to Late Modern English. In Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Variation past and present: VARIENG studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 61), 135–159. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
. 2004a. Accessing politeness axes: On forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence. Journal of Pragmatics 36(12). 2125–2160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. Address in early English correspondence: Its forms and socio-pragmatic functions (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 64). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
. 2009. Friends will be friends? The sociopragmatics of referential terms in early English letters. In Andreas H. Jucker, Daniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Papers from the 29th international conference on English language research on computerized corpora, 81–101. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna & Arja Nurmi. 2013. The Corpora of Early English Correspondence (CEEC400). In Anneli Meurman-Solin & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds.), Principles and practices for the digital editing and annotation of diachronic data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL].Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1996. Gender difference. In Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 77–91. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2000. Processes of supralocalisation and the rise of Standard English in the Early Modern period. In Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & C. B. McCully (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 329–372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Negative concord as an English “vernacular universal”: Social history and linguistic typology. Journal of English Linguistics 34(3). 257–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Variation in written English: Grammar change or a shift in style? In Susan Kermas & Maurizio Gotti (eds.), Socially-conditioned language change: Diachronic and synchronic insights, 31–51. Lecce: Edizioni del Grifo.Google Scholar
. 2009. Number agreement in existential constructions: A sociolinguistic study of 18th-century English. In Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola & Heli Paulasto (eds.), Vernacular universals and language contact, 80–102. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. English historical corpora in transition: From new tools to legacy corpora? In Paul Bennett, Martin Durrell, Silke Scheible & Richard J. Whitt (eds.), New methods in historical corpora (Korpuslinguistik und interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf Sprache 3), 37–53. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2014a. Sociohistorical analysis. In Janet Holmes & Kirk Hazen (eds.), Research methods in sociolinguistics: A practical guide, 93–106. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2014b. What are historical sociolinguistics? Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1(2). 243–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Descriptive adequacy of the S-curve model in diachronic studies of language change. In Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (ed.), Can we predict linguistic change? (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 16). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL].Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.). 2012. The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1994a. Sociolinguistics and language history: The Helsinki Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Hermes: Journal of Linguistics 13. 135–143.Google Scholar
. 1994b. Its strength and the beauty of it: The standardization of the third person neuter possessive in Early Modern English. In Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800, 171–183. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(eds.). 1996a. Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1996b. The Corpus of Early English Correspondence. In Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 39–54. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2000a. The changing role of London on the linguistic map of Tudor and Stuart England. In Dieter Kastovsky & Arthur Mettinger (eds.), The history of English in a social context: A contribution to historical sociolinguistics, 279–337. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. The third-person singular -(e)s and -(e)th revisited: The morphophonemic hypothesis. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Nikolaus Ritt (eds.), Words: Structure, meaning, function; A festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky (Trends in Linguistics 130), 235–248. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg & Heikki Mannila. 2011. The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time-depth of change. Language Variation and Change 23(1). 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg & Peter Trudgill. 2001. Chapters in the social history of East Anglian English: The case of the third-person singular. In Jacek Fisiak & Peter Trudgill (eds.), East Anglian English, 187–204. Cambridge: Boydell & Brewer.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Matti Rissanen. 1986. Do you support the do-support? Emphatic and non-emphatic do in affirmative statements in present-day spoken English. In Sven Jacobson (ed.), Papers from the Third Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation. Stockholm, May 11–12, 1985, 35–50. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24. 359–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.). 2012. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen CXIII(3). Special issue on comparative historical sociolinguistics.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. 2006. Standardisation. In Richard M. Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 271–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Heli Tissari. 2010. Contextualising eighteenth-century politeness: Social distinction and metaphorical levelling. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change (Studies in English Language), 133–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, James. 1793. The rudiments or first principles of English grammar. Newcastle: M. Angus.Google Scholar
Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma. 2004. The progressive in the history of English (LINCOM Studies in English Linguistics 06). Munchen: Lincom.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 1996. Periphrastic do and be + ing: Interconnected developments? In Terttu Nevalainen & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 15), 151–165. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 1998. Manual for the Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler CEECS. Department of English. University of Helsinki. [URL]Google Scholar
. 1999. A social history of periphrastic do (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 56). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.). 2009. The language of daily life in England (1400–1800). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, Arja & Päivi Pahta. 2010. Preacher, scholar, brother, friend: Social roles and code-switching in the writings of Thomas Twining. In Päivi Pahta, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English (Pragmatics & Beyond NS 195), 135–162. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurmi, Arja & Minna Palander-Collin. 2008. Letters as a text type: Interaction in writing. In Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-boon van Ostade (eds.), Studies in Late Modern English correspondence: Methodology and data (Linguistic Insights Studies in Language and Communication 76), 21–49. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. [URL]. (5 May, 2014.)Google Scholar
Oeppen, Jim. 1993. Back projection and inverse projection: Members of a wider class of constrained projection models. Population Studies 47(2). 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Mieko & William S -Y. Wang. 1996. Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: The development of ‑s in the third-person singular present indicative in English. In Derek Britton (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 119–141. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oldireva-Gustafsson, Larisa. 2002. Variation in usage and grammars: The past participle forms of write in English 1680–1790. Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 2. [URL]. (July 2012.)Google Scholar
Olsen, Kirstin. 1999. Daily life in eighteenth-century England. Westwood, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
OTA = University of Oxford Text Archive. University of Oxford. [URL].
Pahta, Päivi, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.). 2010. Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English (Pragmatics & Beyond NS 195). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna & Mikko Hakala. 2011. Standardizing the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC). Poster presented at ICAME 32 (32nd conference of the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English), 1–5 June 2011, Oslo, Norway. Available on CoRD: [URL].
Palander-Collin, Minna & Minna Nevala. 2010. Reporting and social role construction in eighteenth-century personal correspondence. In Päivi Pahta, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), Social roles and language practices in Late Modern English (Pragmatics & Beyond NS 195), 111–133. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna, Minna Nevala & Anni Sairio. 2013. Language and identity in letters. In Jukka Tyrkkö, Olga Timofeeva & Maria Salenius (eds.), Ex philologia lux. Essays in honour of Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 90), 291–311. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Palmer, Chris C. 2009. Borrowings, derivational morphology, and perceived productivity in English, 1300–1600. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Parker, Richard G. & Charles Fox. 1835 [1834]. Progressive exercises in English grammar, 3rd edn. Boston/New York.Google Scholar
Pechenick, Eitan Adam, Christopher M. Danforth & Peter Sheridan Dodds. 2015. Characterizing the Google Books corpus: Strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural and linguistic evolution. PLOS ONE 10(10). e0137041. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Percy, Carol. 2008. Mid-century grammars and their reception in the Monthly Review and the Critical Review . In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 125–142. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009a. Periodical reviews and the rise of prescriptivism: The Monthly (1749–1844) and Critical Review (1756–1817) in the eighteenth century. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Current issues in Late Modern English, 117–150. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2009b. Learning and virtue: English grammar and the eighteenth-century girls’ school. In Mary Hilton & Jill Shefrin (eds.), Educating the child in Enlightenment Britain: Beliefs, cultures, practices, 77–98. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Gerard, Van Herk & Dawn Harvie. 2002. ‘Deformed in the dialects’: An alternative history of non-standard English. In Richard Watts & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Alternative histories of English, 87–110. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Porter, Roy. 2000. Enlightenment: Britain and the creation of the modern world. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pratt, Linda & David Denison. 2000. The language of the Southey-Coleridge circle. Language Sciences 22. 401–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prest, Wilfrid (ed.). 1987. The professions in early modern England. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Quackenbos, George P. 1868 [1862]. An English grammar. New York.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1971. Shakespeare and the English language. In Kenneth Muir & Samuel Schoenbaum (eds.), A new companion to Shakespeare studies, 67–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1994. The development of the compound pronouns in ‑body and ‑one in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English (Topics in English Linguistics 13), 301–324. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Social factors and pronominal change in the seventeenth century: The Civil War effect. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics, 361–388. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen. In Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds.), The language of daily life in England (1400–1800), 165–196. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka. 1997. Indefinite pronouns with singular human reference. In Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English (Topics in English Linguistics 24), 17–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Terttu Nevalainen. 2007. Historical sociolinguistics: The Corpus of Early English Correspondence . In Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan & Hermann L. Moisl (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol. 2, Diachronic databases, 148–171. Houndsmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. A pre-print version is available at [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raven, James. 2009. The book as a commodity. In Michael F. Suarez & Michael L. Turner (eds.), The Cambridge history of the book in Britain, vol. 5, 1695–1830, 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, Paul, Geoffrey Leech & Mary Hodges. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: Some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(1). 133–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renouf, Antoinette. 2012. A finer definition of neology in English: The life-cycle of a word. In Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 57), 177–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth M. 1985. A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes ‑ness and ‑ity . In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics; historical word-formation (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 29), 435–461. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1985. Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in Early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18(2). 163–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13. 16–19.Google Scholar
. 1997. Whatever happened to the Middle English indefinite pronouns? In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics, 513–529. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1986. The evolution of English grammar books since the Renaissance. In Gerhard Leitner (ed.), English reference grammar. Languages and linguistics writers and readers, 292–306. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rohrdantz, Christian, Andreas Niekler, Annette Hautli, Miriam Butt & Daniel A. Keim. 2012. Lexical semantics and distribution of suffixes: A visual analysis. In Miriam Butt, Sheelagh Carpendale, Gerald Penn, Jelena Prokić & Michael Cysouw (eds.), Proceedings of the EACL 2012 joint workshop of LINGVIS & UNCLH, 7–15. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1985. Variability in word formation patterns and productivity in the history of English. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Poznań, 22–26 August 1983 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 34), 451–465. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1998. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. IV, 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Variation in language and gender. In Janet Holmes & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The handbook of language and gender, 98–118. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rowlands, Ian, David Nicholas, Peter Williams, Paul Huntington, Maggie Fieldhouse, Barrie Gunter, Richard Withey, Hamid R. Jamali, Tom Dobrowolski & Carol Tenopir. 2008. The Google generation: The information behaviour of the researcher of the future. Aslib Proceedings 60(4). 290–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert. 2009. Grammar to the people. The Dutch language and the public sphere in the 18th century. With special reference to Kornelis van der Palm. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 19. 55–86.Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert & Marijke J. van der Wal. 2014. Letters as loot: A Sociolinguistic approach to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Dutch. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert, Rik Vosters & Wim Vandenbussche (eds.). 2014. Norms and usage in language history, 1600–1900: A sociolinguistic and comparative perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rydén, Mats & Sverker Brorström. 1987. The be/have variation with intransitives in English: With special reference to the Late Modern period . Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics (Introducing Linguistics 2). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Säily, Tanja. 2011. Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1). 119–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Sociolinguistic variation in English derivational productivity: Studies and methods in diachronic corpus linguistics (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki XCIV). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2016. Sociolinguistic variation in morphological productivity in eighteenth-century English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1). 129–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, Tanja, Terttu Nevalainen & Harri Siirtola. 2011. Variation in noun and pronoun frequencies in a sociohistorical corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 26(2). 167–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Säily, Tanja & Jukka Suomela. 2009. Comparing type counts: The case of women, men and ‑ity in early English letters. In Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Refinements and reassessments (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 69), 87–109. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni. 2009. Language and letters of the Bluestocking network: Sociolinguistic issues in eighteenth-century epistolary English (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 75). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni & Minna Nevala. 2013. Social dimensions of layout in eighteenth-century letters and letter-writing manuals. In Anneli Meurman-Solin & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds.), Principles and practices for the digital editing and annotation of diachronic data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14). Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL]. (26 June, 2015.)Google Scholar
Sandhu, Sukhdev S. 1998. Ignatius Sancho and Laurence Sterne. Research in African Literature 29(4). 88–105.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2004. Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do . Lingua 114. 495–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Leonard. 2000. London 1700–1840. In Peter Clark (ed.), The Cambridge history of urban Britain, vol. 2, 1540–1840, 641–672. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, Robert. 2004. The London mob: Violence and disorder in eighteenth-century England. London: Hambledon and London.Google Scholar
Skedd, Susan. 1997. Women teachers and the expansion of girl’s schooling in England, c.1760–1820. In Hannah Barker & Elaine Chalus (eds.), Gender in eighteenth-century England, 101–125. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam (1762) [1983]. Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres. The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith. Vol. 4. Ed. by J. C. Bryce. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2002. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
. 2005. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 54). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change: Aspects of the evolution of do in English . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, Susie. 2005. Women in England 1750–1914: A social history. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
Stone, Lawrence. 1969. Literacy and education in England, 1640–1900. Past and Present 42. 69–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straaijer, Robin. 2010. Prescription or practice? Be/have variation with past participles of mutative intransitive verbs in the letters of Joseph Priestley. In Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber & Robert Mailhammer (eds.), English historical linguistics 2008. Selected papers from the fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008, 63–78. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara. 1982. Some aspects of the history of the be+ing construction. In John Anderson (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation, 427–474. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suarez, Michael F. 2009. Toward a bibliometric analysis of the surviving record, 1701–1800. In Michael F. Suarez & Michael L. Turner (eds.), The Cambridge history of the book in Britain, vol. 5, 1695–1830, 39–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundby, Bertil, Anne Kari Bjørge & Kari E. Haugland. 1991. A dictionary of English normative grammar 1700–1800. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suomela, Jukka. 2014. types2: Type and hapax accumulation curves. Computer program. Zenodo. Cite to nonCR , [URL]. DOI logo
Svartvik, Jan & Hans Lindquist. 1997. One and body language. In Udo Fries, Viviane Müller & Peter Schneider (eds.), From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English corpus linguistics, 11–20. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1903. A new English grammar II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. Typological parameters of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change 21. 319–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 654–665. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. About text frequencies in historical linguistics: Disentangling environmental and grammatical change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1). 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert & Karlien Franco. 2016. Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2016. Teen talk: The language of adolescents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Art of Letter-Writing, divided into two parts. The first, containing rules and directions for writing letters on all sorts of subjects: with a variety of examples, Equally elegant and instructive. The second, a collection of letters on the most interesting occasions in life, etc. (1762). London: T. Osborne.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1985. Do-support in the writings of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu: A change in progress. Folia Linguistica Historica VI. 127–151.Google Scholar
. 1987. The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century English . A Sociohistorical-linguistic Approach. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 2000. Normative studies in England. In Sylvain Auroux, E. F. Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds.), History of the language sciences, vol. I, 876–887. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2005. Of social networks and linguistic influence: The language of Robert Lowth and his correspondents. In Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (ed.), Sociolinguistics and the history of English. Special issue of International Journal of English Studies 5. 135–157.Google Scholar
. 2006. Eighteenth-century prescriptivism and the norm of correctness. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 539–557. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2008. Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008a. Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing: An introduction. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 1–14. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008b. The 1760s: Grammars, grammarians and the booksellers. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 101–124. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008c. Reception and the market for grammars: Introduction. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Grammars, grammarians and grammar-writing in eighteenth-century England, 79–80. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2009. An introduction to Late Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Eighteenth-century women and their norms of correctness. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change (Studies in English Language), 59–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. In search of Jane Austen. The language of the letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1999. The dialects of England, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka. 2013. Notes on eighteenth-century dictionary grammars. Transactions of the Philological Society 111(2). 179–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, Turo, Tanja Säily & Mikko Hakala. 2013. Variation in pronoun frequencies in early English letters: Gender-based or relationship-based? In Jukka Tyrkkö, Olga Timofeeva & Maria Salenius (eds.), Ex philologia lux: Essays in honour of Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki XC), 233–255. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Visser, F. 1969. An historical syntax of the English language. III Part I. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Visser, Federicus Th. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Vorlat, Emma. 1996. Lindley Murray’s prescriptive canon. In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), Two hundred years of Lindley Murray, 163–182. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans & Isabelle Buchstaller. 2017. Panel studies of variation and change. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans & Gillian Sankoff. 2011. Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change 23(3). 275–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wales, Kathleen M. 1983. Thou and you in Early Modern English: Brown and Gilman re-appraised. Studia Linguistica 37(2). 107–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Terry. 2007. Thou and you in Early Modern English dialogues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallis, John. 1653. Grammatica linguae Anglicanae. Oxford.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 1999. Language and politeness in early eighteenth century Britain. Pragmatics 9(1). 9–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. From polite language to educated language: The re-emergence of an ideology. In Richard Watts & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Alternative histories of English, 155–172. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Grammar writers in eighteenth-century Britain: A community of practice or a discourse community? In Tieken-Boon van Ostade (ed.), 37–56.Google Scholar
Webster, Noah. 1789. Dissertations on the English language. Boston.Google Scholar
White, James. 1761. The English verb. London.Google Scholar
Whyman, Susan. 2009. The Pen and the people: English letter writers 1660–1800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcoxon, Frank. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1(6). 80–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1990. The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 2(1). 55–83.Google Scholar
Wood, Johanna L. 2004. Text in context: A critical discourse analysis approach to Margaret Paston. In Terttu Nevalainen & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen (eds.), Letter writing. Special issue of Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(2). 229–254.Google Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1994. The mystery of the modal progressive. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 467–485. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wrightson, Keith. 2002. Earthly necessities: Economic lives in Early Modern Britain 1470–1750. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Wrigley, Edward A. 1987. People, cities and wealth: The transformation of traditional society. Oxford. Blackwell.Google Scholar
2004. Poverty, progress, and population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Energy and the English industrial revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wrigley, Edward A. & Roger C. Schofield. 1981. The population history of England 1541–1871: A reconstruction. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2016. Early and Late Modern English grammars as evidence in English historical linguistics. In Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics, 164–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria & David Denison. 2015. Which comes first in the double object construction? English Language and Linguistics 19(2). 247–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria & María E. Rodríguez-Gil. 2013. Special volume on English Grammar Writing in the Eighteenth Century . Transactions of the Philological Society 111(2). 141–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Reanalysis in the history of do: A view from construction grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 529–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar