Anderwald, L.
2016Language between Description and Prescription: Verb Categories in Nineteenth-century Grammars of English. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Get, get-constructions and the get-passive in 19th-century English: Corpus analysis and prescriptive comments. In Exploring Recent Diachrony: Corpus Studies of Lexicogrammar and Language Practices in Late Modern English [Varieng], S. Hoffmann, A. Sand & S. Arndt-Lappe (eds), n.p. Helsinki: Helsinki University.Google Scholar
2018Language change and cultural change: The grammaticalization of the get-passive in context. Language & Communication 62: 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020The myth of AmE gotten as a historical retention. In Late Modern English: Novel Encounters [Studies in Language Companion Series 214], M. Kytö & E. Smitterberg (eds), 67–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Historical retention, progressive nation or the eye of the beholder? The evolution of morphological Americanisms. In Early North-American Englishes, M. Kytö & L. Siebers (eds) Amsterdam John Benjamins
Biber, D., Finegan, E. & Atkinson, D.
1994ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring a representative corpus of historical English registers. In Creating and Using English Language Corpora, U. Fries, G. Tottie & P. Schneider (eds), 1–14. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Chapman, D.
2012Enforcing or effacing useful distinctions? Infer vs. imply . Paper presented at ICEHL 17, August 2012, Zurich, Switzerland.
Davies, M.
2010–The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. [URL] (14 May 2020).Google Scholar
Felton, O. C.
1843The analytic and practical grammar. A concise manual of English grammar, arranged on the principle of analysis: containing the first principles and rules, fully illustrated by examples; directions for constructing, analyzing and transposing sentences; a system of parsing, in some respects new and attractive; alternate exercises in correct and false syntax, arranged under most of the rules of syntax; and a series of parsing lessons in regular gradation from the simplest to the most abstruse. Designed for the use of common schools. Salem: W. & S.B. Ives; and Boston: B.B. Muzzey.Google Scholar
Finegan, E.
1980Attitudes towards English Usage: The History of a War of Words. New York NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
1998English grammar and usage. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV: 1776–1997, S. Romaine (ed.), 536–588. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fisk, A.
[1821]1822Murray’s English grammar simplified; designed to facilitate the study of the English language; comprehending the principles and rules of English grammar, illustrated by appropriate exercises; to which is added a series of questions for examination. Abridged for the use of schools. Troy, New York: Z. Clark.Google Scholar
Gloy, K.
1998Sprachnormierung und Sprachkritik in ihrer gesellschaftlichen Verflechtung. In Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, Vol. HSK 2.1, W. Besch, A. Betten, O. Reichmann & S. Sonderegger (eds), 396–406. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gowers, R.
2016Horrible Words: A Guide to the Misuse of English. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, J.
1821[1819]Grammar simplified; or, an ocular analysis of the English language, 3rd edn. New York NY: Charles Starr.Google Scholar
Hallock, E. J.
1849A grammar of the English language; for the use of common schools, academies and seminaries. New York NY: Mark H. Newman & Co.Google Scholar
Hamlin, L. F.
1832[1831]English grammar in lectures: Designed to render its principles easily adapted to the mind of the young learner, and its study entertaining. Stereotype edn. Brattleboro: Peck, Steen and Company.Google Scholar
2009Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change? In One Language – Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, G. Rohdenburg & J. Schlüter (eds), 13–37. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1931A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Vol. IV: Syntax. Third Volume. Time and Tense. London: Allan & Unwin, and Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar Jr., W. A.
2009The Linguistics of Speech. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M.
2004The emergence of American English: Evidence from seventeenth-century records in New England. In Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects, R. Hickey (ed.), 121–157. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. & Walker, T.
2006Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues, 1560–1760 . Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia, Vol. 130. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensia.Google Scholar
Lass, R.
1990How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language change. Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D.
2016Form does not follow function, but variation does: The origin and early usage of possessive have got in English. English Language and Linguistics 20(3): 487–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marckwardt, A. H.
1958American English. New York NY: OUP.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. H.
2001The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5: 125–166.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mencken, H. L.
1919The American Language: A Preliminary Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States. New York NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
1921The American Language, 2nd edn. New York NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
1936The American Language, 4th corrected, enlarged, and rewritten edn. New York NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
2011–Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: OUP. [URL] (14 May 2020).Google Scholar
Putnam, J. M.
1828[1825]English grammar, with an improved syntax. Part I: Comprehending at one view what is necessary to be committed to memory. Part II: Containing a recapitulation, with various illustrations and critical remarks. Designed for the use of schools, 2nd edn. Concord: Jacob B. Moore.Google Scholar
Robertson, S.
1931A British misconception. American Speech 6(4): 314–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W.
2007Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., Nurmi, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S. & Nevalainen, T.
2006Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence. York & Helsinki: Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P.
2011Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Webster, N.
1789Dissertations on the English language: With notes, historical and critical. To which is added, by way of appendix, an essay on a reformed mode of spelling, with Dr. Franklin’s arguments on that subject. Boston: For the author.Google Scholar
1822[1807]A philosophical and practical grammar of the English language, 2nd edn. New Haven: Howe & Spalding.Google Scholar
Welsh, J. P.
1889A practical English grammar, with lessons in composition and letter-writing. Philadelphia PA: Christopher Sower Company.Google Scholar
White, R. G.
1870Words and their uses, past and present: A study of the English language. New York NY: Sheldon and Company.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. & Schilling-Estes, N.
1996Dialect change and maintenance in a post-insular island community. In Focus on the USA [Varieties of English around the World G16], E. W. Schneider (ed.), 103–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
York, B.
1862[1854]An analytical, illustrative, and constructive grammar of the English language. Accompanied by several original diagrams, exhibiting an occular illustration of some of the most difficult principles of the science of language; also, an extensive glossary of the derivation of the principal scientific terms used in this work, in two parts, for the use of every one who may wish to adopt it, 3rd edn. Raleigh: W.L. Pomercy.Google Scholar