Part of
English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning
Edited by Bettelou Los, Claire Cowie, Patrick Honeybone and Graeme Trousdale
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 358] 2022
► pp. 201224
References (61)
Sources
Bosworth–Toller = Bosworth, Joseph. 2010. An Anglo–Saxon dictionary online. (edited by T. Northcote Toller & others; compiled by Sean Christ & Ondrej Tichý). [URL] (6 January, 2021)
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2008–. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010–. The corpus of historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
ICE = International corpus of English. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2017. Oxford: OUP. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
PPCEME = Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME), 1st edn., release 3. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
PPCME2 = Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English (PPCME2), 2nd edn., release 4. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
Randall, Beth. 2009. CorpusSearch 2: A tool for linguistic research. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. [URL] (6 January, 2021)
References
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergh, Gunnar. 1998. Double prepositions in English. In Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds.), English historical linguistics 1996, 1–13. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergh, Gunnar & Aimo Seppänen. 2000. Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 295–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Gray, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Ciszek-Kiliszewska, Ewa. 2014. Middle English preposition twēn(e). Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 49(3). 91–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The Middle English preposition and adverb atwēn. In Brian Lowrey & Fabienne Toupin (eds.), Studies in linguistic variation and change: From Old to Middle English, 41–63. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English. A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2013. Debiasing semantic analysis: The case of the English preposition to. Language Sciences 37. 122–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(2). 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19(1). 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1981. Aspects of the history of English group-verbs. With particular attention to the syntax of the Ormulum. Oxford: Oxford University PhD thesis.
. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dreschler, Gea. 2015. Passives and the loss of verb second: A study of syntactic and information-structural factors. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.). 1996. Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Martin Hilpert. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora 3(1). 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2005. Variable vs. categorical effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses. Journal of English Linguistics 33(3). 257–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik & Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15. 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 1998. New Zealand English grammar. Fact or fiction? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Colonial lag, colonial innovation, or simply language change? In Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars: Morphosyntactic differences between British and American English, 13–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Variable article usages with institutional nouns. An ‘oddment’ of English? In Alex Ho-Cheong Leung & Wim van der Wurff (eds.), The noun phrase in English: Past and present, 113–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Markus. 2001. Grammatikalisierungsphänomene bei Präpositionalobjekten in der deutschen Sprache. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 29(2). 167–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 2011. Semantic erosion of Middle English prepositions. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Lundskær-Nielsen, Tom. 1993. Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Odense: Odense University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–123. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molencki, Rafał. 2005. On the syntactic and semantic development of after in medieval English. In Marcin Krygier & Liliana Sikorska (eds.), Naked wordes in Englissh, 47–67. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. On the rise of the temporal preposition/conjunction before. In Marcin Krygier & Liliana Sikorska (eds.), To make his Englissh sweete upon his tonge, 37–54. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011. New prepositions and subordinating conjunctions of Romance origin in Middle English. In Jacek Fisiak & Magdalena Bator (eds.), Foreign influences on Medieval English, 9–24. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Marco Schilk. 2012. Exploring variation and change in New Englishes: Looking into the International Corpus of English (ICE) and beyond. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 189–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, Volume 1. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald & Ren Hongtao. 2012. Particle verbs in African Englishes: Nativization and innovation. In Marianne Hundt & Ulrike Gut (eds.), Mapping unity and diversity world-wide: Corpus-based studies of New Englishes, 197–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nykiel, Joanna. 2014. Semantic dependencies and the history of ellipsis alternation. In Michael Adams, Laurel Brinton & Richard D. Fulk (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language VI: Evidence and method in histories of English, 51–70. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2015. Constraints on ellipsis alternation: A view from the history of English. Language Variation and Change 27(2). 227–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rostila, Jouni. 2007. Konstruktionsansaetze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere: Juvenes.Google Scholar
Sato, Kiriko. 2009. The development from case-forms to prepositional constructions in Old English prose. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold. 2008. Hybrid long-distance functional dependency parsing. Zurich: University of Zurich PhD dissertation. [URL] (8 October, 2018)
Schneider, Gerold & Lena Zipp. 2013. Discovering new verb-preposition combinations in New Englishes. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 13. [Online journal]Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold, Marianne Hundt & Daniel Schreier. 2020. Pluralized non-counts nouns across Englishes: A corpus-linguistic approach to variety types. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 515–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siew, Tan. 2016. Charting the endonormative stabilization of Singapore English. In Gerhard Leitner, Azirah Hashim & Hans-Georg Wolf (eds.), Communicating with Asia: The future of English as a global language, 69–84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smirnova, Elena. 2015. Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte & Joost Zwarts. 2009. Less form – more meaning: Why bare singular nouns are special. Lingua 119(2). 280–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 654–665. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
1992. Syntax. In Richard Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume 1, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Andrea & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015. Grammar, rhetoric and usage in English: Preposition placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Zehentner, Eva, Marianne Hundt, Gerold Schneider & Melanie Röthlisberger
2023. Differences in syntactic annotation affect retrieval. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 28:3  pp. 378 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2022. Revisiting Gradience in Diachronic Construction Grammar: PPs and the Complement-Adjunct Distinction in the History of English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3  pp. 301 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.