Chapter published in:
Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation
Edited by Elena Seoane and Douglas Biber
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 103] 2021
► pp. 259290
References

References

Anderson, Karen
2000Productivity in English Nominal and Adjectival Derivation, 1100–2000. PhD dissertation, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers
1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber & Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California. Modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Northern Arizona, Southern California, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Uppsala, Michigan, Manchester, Lancaster, Bamberg, Zurich, Trier, Salford, and Santiago de Compostela. www​.alc​.manchester​.ac​.uk​/subjects​/lel​/research​/projects​/archer/
Aronoff, Mark
1976Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight
1999Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald
1989A Corpus-Based Approach to Morphological Productivity. Statistical Analysis and Psycho-Linguistic Interpretation. PhD dissertation, Free University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
1992Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Geert Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds), 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Banks, David
2005On the historical origins of nominalized process in scientific text. English for Specific Purposes 24: 347–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bator, Magdalena
2006Scandinavian loanwords in English in the 15th century. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia. An International Review of English Studies 42: 285–299.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2001Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan C.
2004English in Modern Times: 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1993Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1986Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384–414. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Dimensions of variation among eighteenth-century speech-based and written registers. In Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (eds), 89–109. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2019Register, Genre, and Style, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward
1989Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65(3): 487–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based genres from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries. In History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 688–704. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds), 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany
2013Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics 41: 104–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C.
1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ciszek, Ewa
2008Word Derivation in Early Middle English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia
2012Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds), 237–253. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Wilson, Andrew
2002Style evolution in the English sermon. In Sounds, Words, Texts and Change. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 224], Teresa Fanego, Belén Méndez-Naya & Elena Seoane (eds), 25–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, Claire
1998Diachronic Word-formation: A Corpus-Based Study of Derived Nominalizations in the History of English. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Cowie, Claire & Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
2002Diachronic word-formation and studying changes in productivity over time: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In A Changing World of Words. Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics, Javier Díaz-Vera (ed.), 410–437. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Crystal, David & Davy, Derek
1969Investigating English Style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja
2010Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane
1996The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-based Study of Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier
1986Romance loans in Middle English: A re-assessment. In Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. In Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday, Vol. I: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics, Dieter Kastovsky & Alexander Szwedek (eds), 253–265. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen
2001Genre in linguistic and related discourses. In Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (eds), 3–43. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Di Renzo Villata, Maria Gigliola
2007Legal English. Padova: Cedam.Google Scholar
Durkin, Philip
2008Latin loanwords of the early modern period: How often did French act as an intermediary? In English Historical Linguistics. Selected papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21-25 August 2006. Vol. II. Lexical and Semantic Change, Richard Drury, Maurizio Gotti and Marina Dossena (eds), 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2009The Oxford Guide to Etymology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, Rodríguez-Puente, Paula, López-Couso, María José, Méndez-Naya, Belén, Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma, Blanco-García, Cristina & Tamaredo, Iván
2017The Corpus of Historical English Law Reports 1535–1999 (CHELAR): A resource for analysing the development of English legal discourse. ICAME Journal 41: 53–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Anne-Christine
2014Derivation in Middle English: Regional and Text Type Variation. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred
1999English in Nineteenth-century England. An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Eighteenth-century English. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisƚaw
2011Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-based Study. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany & Egbert, Jesse
2019Register and register variation. Register Studies 1(1): 1–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
2004 [1988]The language of physical science. In The Language of Science [Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday Vol. 5], Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), 140–158. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Martin, James R.
1993Writing Science. Literary and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood & Matthiessen, Christian
2004An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar
1966Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, New Series 68(4): 922–935. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Magnus
2007The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1764–1834. Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Annotating Variation and Change [Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1], Anneli Meurman-Solin & Arja Nurmi (eds). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. https://​varieng​.helsinki​.fi​/series​/volumes​/01​/huber/> (27 May 2021).
Kaunisto, Mark
2007Variation and Change in the Lexicon: A Corpus-based Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice & Delfs, Lauren
2004Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Culpeper, Jonathan
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry
2006Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Lee, David Y. W.
2001Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 37–72.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Cynthia
2011Semantics and Word Formation. The Semantic Development of Five French Suffixes in Middle English. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron
2009Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattiello, Elisa
2010Nominalization in English and Italian normative legal texts. ESP Across Cultures 7: 129–146.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Carey
1998The Evolution of English Prose 1700–1900: Style, Politeness, and Print Culture. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño, Isabel
1995Language contact and language change: The Danes in England. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8: 139–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg
1990Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu
1999Early Modern English lexis and semantics. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. III: 1476–1776, Roger Lass (ed.), 332–458. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena
1994Its strength and the beauty of it: The standardization of the third person neuter possessive in Early Modern English. In Towards a Standard English: Processes of Selection in Syntax and Morphology, Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds), 171–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003Historical Sociolinguistics. Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2011Helsinki Corpus. Period division: Early Modern English. http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/CoRD​/corpora​/HelsinkiCorpus​/earlymodern2​.html> (16 February 2019).
Nevalainen, Terttu & Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid
2006Standardisation. In A History of the English Language, Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds), 271–311. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary
, online edn. http://​www​.oed​.com/> (27 May 2021).
Palmer, Chris C.
2009Borrowings, Derivational Morphology, and Perceived Productivity in English, 1300–1600. PhD dissertation, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
2015Measuring productivity diachronically: Nominal suffixes in English letters, 1400–1600. English Language and Linguistics 19(1): 107–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
1999Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003Word-formation in English. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Baayen, Harald
1999Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics 3(2): 209–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2020R version 3.6.3. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www​.R​-project​.org> (27 May 2021).
Riddle, Elizabeth M.
1985A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity . In Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 435–461. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula
2019Interpersonality in legal written discourse. A diachronic analysis of personal pronouns in law reports, 1535 to present. In Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 91], Teresa Fanego & Paula Rodríguez-Puente (eds), 171–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020Register variation in word-formation processes: The development of -ity and -ness in Early Modern English. International Journal of English Studies 20(2) 147–169. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula, Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, Méndez-Naya, Belén, Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma, Blanco-García, Cristina & Tamaredo, Iván
2018Corpus of Historical English Law Reports 1535–1999 (CHELAR), v.2. https://​www​.usc​-vlcg​.es​/CHELAR​.htm> (27 May 2021).
Romaine, Suzanne
1998Introduction. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997, Suzanne Romaine (ed.), 1–56. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Romero-Barranco, Jesús
2020A comparison of some French and English nominal suffixes in early English correspondence. In Multilingual Origins of Standard English, Laura Wright (ed.), 467–486. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, William
1996The Anglo-French element in the vulgar register of Late Middle English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 5: 423–436.Google Scholar
Säily, Tanja
2014Sociolinguistic Variation in English Derivational Productivity. Studies and Methods in Diachronic Corpus Linguistics. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Säily, Tanja & Suomela, Jukka
2009Comparing type counts: The case of women, men and -ity in early English letters. In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 87–109. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Febrero, José Luis
2003Legal English and Translation: Theory and Practice. Annotated Texts and Documents. Alicante: Editorial Club Universitario.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W.
1985Variability in word formation patterns and productivity in the history of English. In Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 34], Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 451–465. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike
2012WordSmith Tools, Version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Suomela, Jukka
2016Types2: Type and Hapax Accumulation Curves [Computer program]. https://​jukkasuomela​.fi​/types2/> (27 May 2021)
Taavitsainen, Irma
2016Genre dynamics in the history of English. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics, Merja Kytö and Päivi Pahta (eds), 271–285. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M.
1999Legal Language. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Trips, Carola
2009Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -doom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka & Hiltunen, Turo
2009Frequency of nominalization in Early Modern English medical writing. In Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse, Andreas Jucker, Daniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds), 297–320. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija
1996Packing and unpacking of information in academic texts. In Academic Writing. Intercultural and Textual Issues, Eija Ventola & Anna Mauranen (eds), 153–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christopher
2004Legal English and plain language: An introduction. ESP Across Cultures 1: 111–124.Google Scholar