Adger, D. & J. Smith
2010Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120(5). 1109–1134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agutter, A.
1988Standardisation in Middle Scots. Scottish Language, 1–9.Google Scholar
Aitken, A. J.
1979Scottish speech: A historical view with special reference to the Standard English of Scotland. In A. J. Aitken & T. McArthur (eds.), Languages of Scotland, 85–118. W. & R. Chambers.Google Scholar
1984Scots and English in Scotland. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), Language in the British Isles, 517–532. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985A history of Scots. In M. Robinson (ed.) The concise Scots dictionary, ix–xvi. Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Alcorn, R., B. Molineaux, J. Kopaczyk, V. Karaiskos, B. Los. & W. Maguire
2017The emergence of Scots: Clues from Germanic *a reflexes. In J. Cruickshank & R. M. Millar (Eds.), Before the storm: Papers from the Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ulster Triennial Meeting, Ayr 2015, 1–32. FRLSU.Google Scholar
Beal, J.
1997Syntax and morphology. In C. Jones (Ed.), The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language, 335–377. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. & A. van Kemenade
2011Subject positions and information-structural diversification in the history of English. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 10(1). 1–53.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D.
2002A-Chains at the PF-Interface: Copies and ‘covert movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 197–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, I., K. P. Corrigan, A. Holmberg, P. Honeybone. & W. Maguire
2013T-to-R and the Northern Subject Rule: Questionnaire-based spatial, social and structural linguistics. English Language and Linguistics 17. 85–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D.
1985The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In R. Eaton, O. Fischer, W. F. Koopman & F. van der Leek (Eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 45–60. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993English historical syntax. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dorai-Raj, S.
2014Binom: Binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations. R package version 1.1-1. [URL]Google Scholar
Dossena, M.
2013Ego documents in Scottish corpora: The contribution of nineteenth-century letters and diaries to the study of language history. In W. Anderson (Ed.), Language in Scotland: Corpus-based studies, 91–112. Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ecay, A.
2015A multi-step analysis of the evolution of English do-support. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. ScholarlyCommons, Upenn repository. [URL]Google Scholar
Ellegård, A.
1953The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
van Eyndhoven, S., L. Gotthard. & R. Filgueira
2021Scots for the masses? Exploring the use of Scots in 19th century digitised chapbooks. Paper presented at the ISLE 6 conference, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Online).Google Scholar
Fernández Cuesta, J.
2011The Northern Subject Rule in first-person singular contexts in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 32. 89–114.Google Scholar
Galves, C., A. Leal de Andrade. & P. Faria
2017The Tycho Brahe Parsed Corpus of Historical Portuguese. [URL]Google Scholar
Garrett, A.
1998On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 2. 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E.
2008Negative cycles. Linguistic Typology 12. 195–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotthard, L.
2019Why do-support in Scots is different. English Studies 100. 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021Variation in subject-verb agreement in the history of Scots. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 27(1). 61–65. [[URL]]Google Scholar
Görlach, M.
1991Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002A textual history of Scots. Unversitetsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
de Haas, N.
2011Morphosyntactic variation in Northern English: The Northern Subject Rule, its origins and early history. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Harris, J.
1984Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20(2). 303–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofman, K.
2019Approaching transition Scots from a micro-perspective: The Dunfermline Corpus, 1573–1723. In R. Alcorn, J. Kopaczyk, B. Los & B. Molineaux (eds.) Historical dialectology in the digital age, 39–60. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jamieson, E.
2015An investigation of verb raising in the Shetland dialect of Scots [MScR dissertation, University of Edinburgh]. Edinburgh Research Archive. [URL]Google Scholar
Jonas, D.
2002Residual V-to-I. In D. W. Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 251–270. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A.
2000Jespersen’s cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalization. In S. Pintzuk, G. Tsoulas & A. Warner (Eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 51–75. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
2000Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks. In J. R. Black & V. Motapanyane (eds.), Parameters and universals, 3–9. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, A.
1997The inflectional morphology of Older Scots. In C. Jones (ed.) The Edinburgh history of the Scots language, 156–181. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopaczyk, J.
2013Rethinking the traditional periodisation of the Scots language. In R. M. Millar & J. Cruickshank (eds.), After the storm: Papers from the forum for research on the languages of Scotland and Ulster, 233–260. University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
Kroch, A.
1989Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change 1. 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. & B. Santorini
2021Penn-BFM Parsed Corpus of Historical French, version 1.0. [URL]Google Scholar
Kroch, A., B. Santorini. & L. Delfs
2004The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English, release 3. University of Pennsylvania. [URL]Google Scholar
Kroch, A., B. Santorini. & A. Diertani
2016Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English, 2nd edn., release 1. University of Pennsylvania. [URL]Google Scholar
Kroch, A. & A. Taylor
2000The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edn., release 4. University of Pennsylvania. [URL]Google Scholar
Los, B.
2015A historical syntax of English. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macafee, C. & A. J. Aitken
2002A history of Scots to 1700. [URL]Google Scholar
Maguire, W.
2012English and Scots in Scotland. In R. Hickey (ed.) Areal features in the Anglophone world, 53–77. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martineau, F., P. Hirschbühler, A. Kroch. & Y. C. Morin
2021MCVF Corpus, parsed, version 2.0. [URL]Google Scholar
McClure, D.
1994English in Scotland. In R. Burchfield (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume 5: English in Britain and overseas: Origins and development, 21–93. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A.
1993Periphrastic do in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scots. In A. Meurman-Solin (Ed.), Variation and change in early Scottish prose, 259–276. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
1997Differentiation and standardisation in Early Scots. In C. Jones (Ed.), The Edinburgh history of the Scots language, 3–23. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, & VARIENG 2016Manual to the Helsinki Corpus of Scottish Correspondence 1540-1750 (ScotsCorr). Available at: [URL]Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A. & VARIENG
2017Helsinki Corpus of Scottish Correspondence (1540–1750). FIN-CLARIN. [URL]Google Scholar
Montgomery, M.
1994The evolution of verb concord in Scots. In A. Fenton & D. McDonald (eds.) Proceedings of the third international conference on the languages of Scotland, 81–95. Canongate Academic and The Linguistic Survey of Scotland, School of Scottish Studies, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Murison, D. D.
1979The historical background. In A. Aitken & T. MacArthur (Eds.), Languages of Scotland, 2–13. W. & R. Chambers.Google Scholar
Nurmi, A.
1999A social history of periphrastic do (Mémoires de la Société néophilologique de Helsinki 56). Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
2011The rise and regulation of periphrastic do in negative declarative sentences: A sociolinguistic study. In D. Kastovsky, & A. Mettinger (Eds.), The history of English in a social context: A contribution to historical sociolinguistics, 339–362. de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pietsch, L.
2005Variable grammars: Verbal agreement in Northern dialects of English. Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postma, G.
2010The impact of failed changes. In C. Lucas, S. Watts, A. Breitbarth & D. Willis (Eds.), Continuity and change in grammar, 269–302. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poussa, P.
1990A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do with special consideration of Old English-Celtic contact. In S. Adamson, V. Law, N. Vincent & S. Wright (eds.) Papers from the 5th international conference on English historical linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65), 407–434. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Randall, B.
2000/2013CorpusSearch 2: A tool for linguistics research. [URL]Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ledesma, M. N.
2013The Northern Subject Rule in first-person singular contexts in fourteenth-fifteenth-century Scots. Folia Linguistica Historica 34. 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017The northern subject rule in the Breadalbane Collection. English Studies 15. 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santorini, B.
2021The Penn Parsed Corpus of Historical Yiddish. [URL]Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. & M. Montgomery
2001On the trail of early nonstandard grammar: An electronic corpus of southern U.S. Antebellum overseers’ letters. American Speech 76. 388–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shoemark, P., S. Kirby & S. Goldwater
2017Topic and audience effects on distinctively Scottish vocabulary usage in Twitter data. In J. Brooke, T. Solorio & M. Koppel (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on stylistic variation, 59–68. Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, J.
Smith, J., D. Adger, B. Aitken, C. Heycock, E. Jamieson & G. Thoms
2019The Scots syntax atlas. University of Glasgow. [URL]Google Scholar
Stein, D.
1985Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In R. Eaton, O. Fischer, W. F. Koopman & F. van der Leek (Eds.), 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 283–302. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, J.
2004Scottish English: Phonology. In B. Kortmann & E. Schneider, eds., A handbook of varieties of English. Volume 1: Phonology, 47–67. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & T. Kaufman
1988Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I.
1990The origin and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: A case of destigmatisation. NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 16(1). 3–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tortora, C. & M. den Dikken
2010Subject agreement variation: Support for the configurational approach. Lingua 120(5). 1089–1108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, M. J. & G. Rutten
Wallenberg, J., A. K. Ingason, E. Freyr Sigurðsson. & E. Rögnvaldsson
2011Icelandic Parsed Historical Corpus (IcePaHC), version 0.9. [URL]Google Scholar
Wallis, S.
2013Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: Mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 20(3). 178–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, A.
2002What drove do? In C. Kay, S. Horobin & J. Smith (eds.) New perspectives on English historical linguistics. Volume 1: Syntax and morphology, 229–242. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2005Why DO dove: Evidence for register variation in Early Modern English negatives. Language Variation and Change 17. 257–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar