Cover not available
Part of
The Development of Speaker-Oriented Adverbs in English: Reanalysis, ellipsis, lexicalization or analogy?
Dagmar Haumann and Kristin Killie
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 287] 2025
► pp. 169–185

References

This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
[OED] Oxford English Dictionary. [URL]
Abraham, Werner. 2012. Illocutive force is speaker and information source concern. What type of syntax does the representation of speaker deixis require? Templates vs. derivational structure? In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, 67–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aelbrecht, Lobke. 2010. The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18(1–2): 393–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Studies in Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds), 1–31. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Typological Studies in Language 54]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Evidentiality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018a. 7 Evidentiality and language contact. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed), 148–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b. 1 Evidentiality: The framework. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed), 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allerton, David J. & Cruttenden, Alan. 1974. English sentence adverbials: their syntax and intonation in British English. Lingua 34: 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1976. The intonation of medial and sentence final adverbials in British English. Archivum Linguisticum 7: 29–59.Google Scholar
. 1978. Syntactic, illocutionary, thematic and attitudinal factors in the intonation of adverbials. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 155–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality. In Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, Henning Andersen (ed), 225–248. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc & Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. An intervention account of the distribution of main clause phenomena: evidence from ellipsis. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(1): 61–91.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1: 16–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Renouf, Antoinette, 1996. Chronicling the times: productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauke, Leah. 2014. Symmetry Breaking in Syntax and the Lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauke, Leah, Haumann, Dagmar & Killie, Kristin. 2022. Modeling reanalysis, naturally. In Studying Language Change in the 21st Century. Theory and Methodologies, Nikolaos Lavidas & Kiki Nikiforidou (eds), 53–75. Leiden/Boston: Brill’s Studies in Historical Linguistics [BSHL] series. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28(4): 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order Patterns in Old and Middle English. A Syntactic and Pragmatic Study. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen. Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Behagel, Otto. 1928. Deutsche Syntax: Eine Geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. IV: Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2017. The role of analogy in language processing and acquisition. In The Changing English Language, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 215–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 337–351.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2. Luigi Rizzi (ed), 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Linda van & David Denison. 2007. A corpus of late eighteenth-century prose. In Creating and digitizing language corpora, Vol. 2: Diachronic databases, Joan C. Beal, Karen P. Corrigan & Hermann L. Moisl (eds.), 228–46. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berry, James Andrew. 2011. Diachronic Adverbial Morphosyntax: A Minimalist Study of Lexicalization and Grammaticalization. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.Google Scholar
Berry, James. 2018. A generative approach to lexicalization: speech-act frankly in the history of English. Word 64(3): 135–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2019. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Blevins, Juliette. 2009. 1 Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), 1–12. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1938. Language. In General anthropology, Franz Boas (ed) 124–145). Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree Words. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: on the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1): 27–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Phil. 2020. Multiple Feature Inheritance and the phase structure of the left periphery. In Rethinking Verb Second, Sam Wolfe & Rebecca Woods (eds), 150–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine & Kranich, Svenja (eds). 2015. What happens after grammaticalization? Secondary grammaticalization and other late stage processes. Language Sciences 47(B): 161–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broccias, Cristiano. 2012. Oriented -ingly adjuncts in Late Modern English. In English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 2015), Munich, 24–30 August 2008. Volume II: Words, Texts, and Genres, Hans Sauer & Gaby Waxenberger (eds), 147–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2016. Old English Verb-Second-ish in a Typology of Verb-Second. Ms. University of Delaware [[URL], 22.09.2020]Google Scholar
Bruil, Martine. 2015. When evidentials are not evidentials: The case of the Ecuadorian Siona reportative. Linguistic Typology 19(3): 385–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate & Bergs, Alexander. 2017. Understanding Language Change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, use and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of IP and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2. Luigi Rizzi (ed), 115–165. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28(4): 493–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Henk van Riemsdijk (ed), 145–234. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, Wallace Chafe & Joanna Nichols (eds), 261–272. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Chen, Guohua. 2000. The Grammaticalization of Concessive Markers in Early Modern English. In: Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English, Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 85–110. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In, The view from Building 20, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: THE MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 89–115. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In The cartography of Syntactic structures. Vol. 3, Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds), 65–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Issues in adverbial syntax. In Taking up the Gauntlet. Adverbs across Frameworks (Lingua 114:6) Artemis Alexiadou (ed), 683–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2012. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 1–20. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2014. Phase Theory. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2001. The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts. Manual of Information. 1999/2003. ICAME Collection.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormack, Annabel & Smith, Neil. 1998. Negation, polarity and V positions in English. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 285–322.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. (eds). 2007. The Copy Theory of Movement. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danchev, Andrei & Kytö, Merja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Studies in Early Modern English, Dieter Kastovsky (ed), 59–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2012. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7: 121–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, Karen, Haegeman, Liliane & Lohndal, Terje. 2012. Medial adjunct PPs in English: Implications for the syntax of sentential negation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 35(1), 5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9: 201–16.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. De Gruyter, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 2017. Ambiguity and vagueness in historical change. In The Changing English Language, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 292–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. English -ing clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48: 1153–1193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Does innovation need reanalysis? In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change, Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds), 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Fischer, Olga. 2017. The role of analogy in language change: supporting constructions. In The Changing English Language, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 240–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2023. Does reanalysis need ambiguity? In Strategies of Ambiguity, Matthias Bauer & Angelika Zirker (eds), 220–244. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ultich & Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis. A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21: 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization. International symposium, Potsdam, 17–19 June, 1999, Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena 2010. Abgrenzung von Modalität und Evidentialität im heutigen Deutsch. In Modalität/Temporalität in kontrastiver und typologischer Sicht, Andrzej Katny & Anna Socka (eds), 113–31. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang [Danziger Beiträge zur Germanistik 30].Google Scholar
Donner, Morton. 1991. Adverb form in Middle English. English Studies 72(1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1978. The syntactic structure of English texts: a computer-based study of four kinds of text in the Brown university corpus. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joesph E. 1970. Root and Structure-Preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Endo, Yoshio & Haegeman, Liliane. 2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 48. 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. & Seely, T. Daniel. 2002. Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax.’ In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel D. Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 1984. Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English. Bloomington: Ph.D. dissertation, IULC.Google Scholar
. 1985. The odd syntax of domain adverbs. Language Research 21(2): 167–177.Google Scholar
. 2004. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published in 2001.Google Scholar
. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 497–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 1998. The Knowing Ear: An Australian Test of Universal Claims about the Semantic Structure of Sensory Verbs and their Extension into the Domain of Cognition. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76: 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2017. Chapter 12: Syntactic Ambiguity in Real-Time Language Processing and Diachronic Change. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 271–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 2020. Analogy in morphology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 20 April 2020, <[URL]> (26 May 2023). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On analogy as the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32(2): 336–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization: On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. In On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change, Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek van de Velde (eds.), 43–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Analogy in language and linguistics. Oxford Bibliographies. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny & Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34(1): 143–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William J. 2003. Analogy. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, William J. Frawley (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41–78. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics (5)1: 1–31.Google Scholar
. 2023. On the categorical status of different dependent clauses. In Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. / Propositional Arguments in Cross-linguistics research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues (Studien zur Deutschen Sprache) Jutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds), 364–410. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner & Pittner, Karin 1999. Adverbialpositionen im deutsch-englischen Vergleich. In Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung, Monika Doherty (ed), 14–40. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2001. The force of ForceP. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 107–20.Google Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Renewal in the left periphery: economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2): 131–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelhaus, Hermann. 1972. Das System der Nebensatseinleitenden Konjunktionen in Diachronischer Sicht, Synchronie und Diachronie: Zwei Vorträge über Probleme der Nebensatzeinleitenden Konjunktionen und der Consecutio Temporum, Hermann Gelhaus (ed), 9–28. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7: 155–170Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, Anggoro, Florencia K. & Klibanoff, Raquel S. 2011. Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories. Child Development 82(4): 1173–1188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2002. Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2012. The morphology of-ly and the categorial status of adverbs in English. English Language and Linguistics 16(3): 341–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers, Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 257–310. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González-Cruz, Ana I. 2007. On the subjectification of adverbial clause connectives: Semantic and pragmatic considerations in the development of while-clauses. In Connectives in the History of English: Selected Papers from 13th ICEHL, Vienna, 23–28 August 2004, Ursula Lenker & Anneli Meurman-Solin (eds), 146–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1999. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts. In Metonymy in Language and Thought, Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds), 193–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English Adverbial Usage. Miami, FLA: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther & Kremers, Joost. 2009. Phases and cycles. Some problems with Phase Theory. The Linguistic Review 26: 385–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1967. Logic and conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words, Paul Grice (ed), 41–58. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Vol 3, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2: 117–180.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Conditional clauses: external and internal syntax. Mind & Language 18(4): 317–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. Speculations on adverbial fronting and the left periphery. In Temps et Point det Vue/Tense and Point of View, Jacqueline Guéron & Liliane Tasmowski (eds), 329–365. Paris: Université de Paris X.Google Scholar
. 2006a. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the Left Periphery. In Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense, and Clausal Architecture, Raffaella Zanuttini, Héctor Campos, Paul H. Portner & Paul H. Portner (eds), 27–52. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010a. The internal syntax of adverbial clauses. Lingua 120: 628–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 595–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Deriving truncation. In Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons, Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 113–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. In Syntax and its Limits, Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara. 2010a. Referential CPs and DPs: an operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 111–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Operator movement, referentiality and intervention. Theoretical Linguistics 36: 233–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 53–110. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 117–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Some key features in distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (MITWPL) 21: 275–288.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin. 1987. On subjectivity and the history of epistemic expressions in English. In Papers from the 23d Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part one: The general session, Barbara Need, Eric Schiller & Anna Bosch (eds), 133–47. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. Distributed morphology. GLOT 4(4): 3–19.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2003. Cross-linguistic perspectives on syntactic change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 529–551). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harwood, William 2015. Being progressive is just a phase: celebrating the uniqueness of progressive aspect under a phase-based analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(2): 523–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar. 2000. Aspects of the Verbal Complex in English. In Interkulturelle Thessaloniker Analysen, Kathi Dorfmüller-Karpusa & Ekaterini Vretta-Panidou (eds), 161–170. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. Adverb licensing and clause structure in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haumann, Dagmar & Killie, Kristin. 2019. Bridging contexts in the reanalysis of NATURALLY as a sentence adverb: A corpus study. In Grammar — Discourse — Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change, Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 191–220. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Seriously, where do illocutionary adverbs come from? A corpus-based assessment of the main hypotheses. In Digitally-assisted Historical English Linguistics, Carolina P. Amador-Moreno, Dagmar Haumann & Arne Peters (eds), 125–150. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2012. The drift of English towards invariable word order from a typological and Germanic perspective. In The Oxford handbook of the history of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds.), 622–632. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heeren, Jan-Friso. 2022. Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Infomed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers. Wiesbaden: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New reflections on grammaticalization. International Symposium, Potsdam, 17–19 June, 1999, Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the pragmatics — syntax interface. Lingua 117: 2077–2105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization – A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland & Petrova, Svetlana. 2010. From V1 to V2 in West Germanic. Lingua 120(2): 315–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications [Georgetown University Round Table ‘84], Deborah Schiffrin (ed), 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hoye, Leo Francis. 1997. Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Huang, Shuan-Fan. 1975. A Study of Adverbs. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus & Puga, Karin (2016). Old Bailey Corpus 2.0, 1720–1930 Manual. [URL] (1 May 2016).Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English, English Language and Linguistics 1: 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1995. The Epistemic weil. In Subjectivity and Subjectification, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 16–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 1998. The spread of -ly to present participles. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds), 119–134. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Stative Adverbs in English: A Study of Adverbial Productivity and Orientation. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø. [[URL]]
. 2005. On the role of prescriptivism in the spread of the English adverbial -ly suffix. In Mot rikare mål å trå: Festskrift til Tove Bull, Gulbrand Alhaug, Endre Mørck & Aud-Kirsti Pedersen (eds), 68–79. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
. 2007a. On the source(s) and grammaticalization of the Germanic — lik suffix. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108(4): 659–682.Google Scholar
. 2007b. On the development and use of appearance/attribute adverbs in English. Diachronica 24(2): 327–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Secondary grammaticalization and the English adverbial -ly suffix. Language Sciences 47(B): 199–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Extravagance, productivity and the development of -ingly adverbs. In Extravagant Morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology, Matthias Eitelmann & Dagmar Haumann (eds), 51–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinn, Torodd. 2024. Strangely enough: The rise of a sentence adverbial construction. Maal og Minne 116(2).Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Remarks on analogical change. In Explanation in phonology, Paul Kiparsky (ed), 199–215. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Analogy. In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 1, 56–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Grammaticalization as Optimization. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds). Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1996. Two subject positions in English. The Linguistic Review 13: 110–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. Adverbial Subordination. A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2023. Layers of the clause: propositions, judgments, commitments, acts. In Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. / Propositional Arguments in Cross-linguistics research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues (Studien zur Deutschen Sprache) Jutta M. Hartmann & Angelika Wöllstein (eds), 116–183. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry. 2006. Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed), 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization (Classics in Linguistics). 3rd edition. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach and Dieter Stein (eds), 229–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Soþlice, forsoothe, truly — communicative principles and invited inferences in the history of truth intensifying adverbs in English. In Methods in Historical Pragmatics, Susan M Fitzmaurice & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 81–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press/Bradford Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17(4): 623–661.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2006. The phrase structure of the copula. In Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax: 37–75.Google Scholar
Lünen, Alexander von, Jeffries, Lesley, Stradling, Fransina, González, Hugo Sanjurjo & Crossley, Paul. 2023. Hansard at Huddersfield: Adapting Corpus Linguistic Methods for Non-Specialist Use. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 17(2): 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2005. Going through a phase. In Perspectives on Phases, Martha McGinnis & Norvin Richards (eds), 157–181. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2013. Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In Non-Canonical Passives, Artemis Alexiadou & Florian Schäfer (eds), 21–42. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michell. Gillian. 1976: Indicating the truth of propositions: a pragmatic function of sentence adverbs. CLS 12: 495–505.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2004. Phrase impenetrability and wh-intervention. In Minimality Effects in Syntax,  Arthur Stepanov, Gisbert Fanselow & Ralf Vogel (eds), 289–325. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Ways of clausal typing. In Proceedings of the XXIX IGG, Gloria Cocchi & Caterina Donati (ed), 87–106. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2005. On the diachronic origin of sentential particles in Northern Italian dialects. In Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 247–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1994a. Aspects of adverbial change in Early modern English. In Studies in Early Modern English, Dieter Kastovsky (ed), 243–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994b. Diachronic issues in English adverb formation. In: Creating and Using English Language Corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zürich 1993 (ICAME 14), Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie & Peter Schneider (eds), 139–147. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The processes of adverb derivation in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English, Matti Rissanen, Merka Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds), 145–189. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Three perspectives on grammaticalization: lexico-grammar, corpora and historical linguistics. In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, Christian Mair (ed), 1–31. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Social variation in intensifier use: constraint on -ly adverbialization in the past? English Language and Linguistics 12(2): 289–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Rissanen, Matti. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the devlopment and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24: 359–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsen, Øystein. 2000. The Syntax of Circumstantial Adverbials. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expression. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of the intensifier. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1886. Principien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Peters, Hans. 1993. Die englischen Gradadverbien der Kategorie booster. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In Studies in Early Modern English, Dieter Kastovsky (ed), 269–288. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 2013. Speech-act Adverbs as Manner Adverbs. Ms. Université det Lille 3/UMR 8163 STL.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan. 1993. The distribution and syntax of Old English adverbs. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 36: 152–67.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2015. Between inflection and derivation. Adverbial suffixes in English and German. In Adverbs. Functional and Diachronic Aspects, Karin Pittner, Daniela Elsner & Fabian Barteld (eds), 133–156. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2010. Sentential particles and remnant movement. In Mapping the Left Periphery (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 5), Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (ed), 201–227. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pounder, Amanda. 2001. Adverb-marking in German and English: System and standardization. Diachronica XVIII(2): 301–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powell, Mava Jo. 1992. The systematic development of correlated interpersonal and metalinguistic uses in stance adverbs. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 75–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide. 1994. Prototypical adverbs: on the scalarity/radiality of the notion of ADVERB. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 289–326.Google Scholar
. 1998. Sentence adverbs. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. Ó Baoill (ed), 187–275. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2019. Event Structure and Verbal Decomposition. In The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure, Robert Truswell (ed), 314–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4): 766–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, Davide. 2010. Adverbs. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 2: Constituent Syntax: Adverbial Phrases, Adverbs, Mood, Tense. Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds), 109–191. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: an argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Deriving the edge: what’s in a phase. Syntax 14(1): 74–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed), 223–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Cinque, Guglielmo. 2016. Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics 2016(2): 139–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformtional Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 221–273. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2013. Using historical literature databases as corpora. In Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, Manfred Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), 119–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Peter Anthony. 1968. English Sentence Adverbs: A Transformational Analysis. New York University, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1971. Some constraints on the formation of English sentence adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 2(1): 83–101.Google Scholar
. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3): 321–347.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2010. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(6): 417–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2008. Almost certainly and most definitely: Degree modifiers and epistemic stance. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1521–1542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 2011. Verbal and adjectival participles: Position and internal structure. Lingua 121: 1569–1587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2014. Syntactic Stability and Change in Nineteenth-century Newspaper Language. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed), 311–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry of Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics, Anna-Maria Di Sciullo (ed), 315–344. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sugioka, Yoko & Lehr, Rachel. 1983. Adverbial -ly as an inflectional affix. In Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, John F. Richardson, Mitchell Marks & Amy Chukerman (eds), 293–300. Chicago: the Society.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1984. Adverbial usage in Ælfric’s Lives of Saints. Nordlyd 9: 7–70.Google Scholar
. 1988a. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic Investigation. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
. 1988b. The development of sentence adverbs in English. Studia Linguistica 42(1): 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Subject-oriented adverbs in 20th century English. Nordlyd 16: 14–58.Google Scholar
. 1991. Adverbial shifts: Evidence from Norwegian and English. In Historical English syntax, Dieter Kastovsky (ed), 409–438. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. From manner to subject modification: adverbialization in English. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Adverbialization and subject-modification in Old English. In Advances in English historical linguistics, Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds), 443–456. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Adverbialization (or: what does it actually/basically/probably mean to be an English adverb?). In These Things Write I vnto Thee: Essays in Honour of Bjørg Bækken, Leiv Egil Beivik, Sandra Halverson & Kari E. Haugland (eds), 255–68. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Swan, Toril & Breivik, Leiv Egil. 2011. English sentence adverbials in a discourse and cognitive perspective. English Studies 92 (6): 679–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting February 13–15, 1988. General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization, Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster (eds), 389–405. University of California, Berkeley, Department of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization, Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Ann. 2014. Old English syntax. In The development of Old English, Don Ringe & AnnTaylor (ed), 392–509. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed), 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 1972. The History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. From polysemy to internal semantic reconstruction. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1986): 539–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65 (1): 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. From less to more situated in language: The unidirectionality of semantic change. In Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel, Vincent & Susan Wright (eds), 497–517. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and subjectivization, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester 1995. Version of 11/97, available at [URL]Google Scholar
. 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 19–49. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Motives for Language Change, Raymond Hickey (ed), 124–139. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A Reassessment. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–69. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Pragmatics and language change. In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, Keith Allan & Katarzyna Jaszczolt (eds), 549–565. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 2012b. The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. Language and Computers 76: 221–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2013. Grammaticalization. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 271–285. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
. 2023. Context in historical linguistics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context. Part I – Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective, Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed), 49–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. I, Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 189–218. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. In Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotta, Joe & Seppänen, Aimo. 1998. The Relative/Conjunction Interface: A Study of the Syntax of while/whilst in Present Day English. English Studies 79: 349–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
University of Pennsylvania. 2024. Penn Parsed Corpora of Historical English. [URL] (3 July 2024)
Uppsala University. 2024. A Corpus of English Dialogues. [URL] (29 April 2024)
VARIENG (Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and change in English). 2011. A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. University of Helsinki. [URL] (3 March 2011)
. 2013. A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. University of Helsinki. [URL] (21 October 2013)
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 1999. Reanalyse als metonymischer Prozess. In Reanalyse und Grammatikalisierung in romanischen Sprache, Jürgen Lang & Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh (eds), 19–29. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal Syntax, Peter. Culicover, Adrian Akmajian & Thomas Wasow (eds), 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Western, August. 1906. Some remarks on the use of English adverbs. Englische Studien 36: 75–99.Google Scholar
White, Peter. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: a dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2): 259–284.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2018. Evidentials and Epistemic Modality. In The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed), 85–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter-Froemel, Esme & Zirker, Angelika. 2010. Ambiguität in der Sprecher-Hörer-Interaktion. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 40: 76–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Ambiguity in speaker-hearer-interaction: A parameter-based model of analysis. In Ambiguity, Susanne Winkler (ed), 283–339. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. 2014. The syntax of orientation shifting. Evidence from English high adverbs. In ConSOLE XXII: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (8–10 January 2014, Lisbon), Martin Kohlberger, Kate Bellamy & Eleanor Dutton (eds), 205–230. Leiden, Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wrenn, Charles Leslie. 1967. A study of Old English literature. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1995. Why English adverbial -ly is not inflectional. Papers from the 31st regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 31 part 1, 523–5. Chicago: the Society.Google Scholar