Chapter published in:
Late Modern English: Novel encounters
Edited by Merja Kytö and Erik Smitterberg
[Studies in Language Companion Series 214] 2020
► pp. 118142
References

References

Alexander, Marc
2018The Hansard Corpus through a telescope. Plenary talk given at ICAME 39: Corpus Linguistics and Changing Society, in Tampere, Finland, 3 June.
Alexander, Marc & Davies, Mark
2015–Hansard Corpus 1803–2005. http://​www​.hansard​-corpus​.org
Anderwald, Lieselotte
2002Negation in Non-Standard British English. Gaps, Regularizations and Asymmetries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence
2014AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Macintosh OS X]. Tokyo: Waseda University. http://​www​.laurenceanthony​.net/
Baker, Paul
2009The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1991The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, 16 August 1991. http://​faculty​.arts​.ubc​.ca​/lbrinton​/HAVETO​.PDF
Bybee, Joan
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Close, Joanne & Aarts, Bas
2010Current change in the modal system of English: A case study of must, have to and have got to . In English Historical Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 15), Munich, 24–30 August 2008, Vol. I: The History of English Verbal and Nominal Constructions [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 314], Ursula Lenker, Judith Huber & Robert Mailhammer (eds), 165–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter
2009Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O.
1935A Grammar of the English Language, Vol. I: Parts of Speech. Boston MA: D.C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2015At the crossroads of change: Possession, periphrasis, and prescriptivism in Victoria English. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67], Peter Collins (ed.), 43–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2010–The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coha/
De Smet, Hendrik
2005A Corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29: 69–82.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Diller, Hans-Jürgen & Tyrkkö, Jukka
2011The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Version 3.0.).Google Scholar
Denis, Derek & D’Arcy, Alexandra
2019Deriving homogeneity in a settler colonial variety of English. American Speech 94(2): 223–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David
1993English Historical Syntax. Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan
2008New-Dialect Formation in Canada: Evidence from the English Modal Auxiliaries [Studies in Language Companion Series 97]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar
1953 The Auxiliary Do. The Establishment and Regulation of its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Enríquez García, Ildara & D’Arcy, Alexandra
2017Diachronic insights to colliding changes. Paper presented at American Dialect Society Annual Meeting 2017 in Austin, Texas, 5 January.
Fischer, Olga
1994The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78: 137–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again. In Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change. From Old to Middle English, Fabienne Toupin & Brian Lowrey (eds), 120–150. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson & Kučera, Henry
1964Manual of Information to Accompany a Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers. Providence RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993Auxiliaries. Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1991On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne
2015 Do-support in early New Zealand and Australian English. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67], Peter Collins (ed.), 65–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999“Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea & Siemund, Rainer
1998Manual of Information to Accompany the Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English (‘FLOB’). Freiburg: Englisches Seminar, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Sand, Andrea & Skandera, Paul
1999Manual of Information to Accompany the Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English (‘Frown’). Freiburg: Englisches Seminar, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko
2004The use of the auxiliary do in negation in Tom Jones and some other literary works of the contemporary period. In New Trends in English Historical Linguistics. An Atlantic View, Isabel Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño & Begoña Crespo García (eds), 223–240. Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt
1979Modality and the modals of necessity must and have to . English Studies 60(3): 296–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L.
2005‘We’ve got our own little ways of doing things here’: Cross-variety variation, change and divergence in the English stative possessive (PhD Generals Papers I), University of Toronto. http://​twpl​.library​.utoronto​.ca​/index​.php​/twpl​/article​/view​/19589​/19646
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey & Goodluck, Helen
1978Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred
1998String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26(4): 286–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Emerging English Modals. A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Łęcki, Andrzej M.
2010Grammaticalisation Paths of Have in English. Bern: Peter Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas
2005Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal 29: 83–98.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou
2005The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2012From opportunistic to systematic use of the web as corpus: Do-support with got (to) in contemporary American English. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth C. Traugott (eds), 245–255. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2014Do we got a difference? Divergent developments of semi-auxiliary (have) got (to) in British and American English. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 56–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja
1999A Social History of Periphrastic Do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary
Ogura, Mieko
1993The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10(1): 51–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schulz, Monika E.
2011Possession and obligation. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects. Modals, Pronouns and Complement Clauses, Nuria Hernández, Daniela Kolbe & Monika E. Schulz (eds), 19–51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seggewiß, Friederike
2012Current Changes in the English Modals: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Present-Day Spoken English. PhD dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry
1898A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, Part II: Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.
2004 Have to, gotta, must: Grammaticalization, variation and specialization in English deontic modality. In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 13], Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair (eds), 33–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra
2007The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1): 47–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer
2006Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23(2): 341–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takizawa, Naohiro
2005A corpus-based study of the haven’t NP pattern in American English. In Aspects of English Negation, Yoko Iyeiri (ed), 159–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; Tokyo: Yushodo Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid
1987The Auxiliary Do in Eighteenth-century English. A Sociohistorical-Linguistic Approach. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu & Wischer, Ilse
2002Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ukaji, Masatomo
2005The making of the semi-auxiliary have to . In Recent Trends in Medieval English Language and Literature in Honour of Young-Bae Park, Vol. 1, Jacek Fisiak & Hye-Kyung Kang (eds), 57–73. Seoul: Thaehaksa.Google Scholar
Van der Gaaf, W.
1931 Beon and habban connected with an inflected infinitive. English Studies 13: 176–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Varela Pérez, José Ramón
2007Negation of main verb have: Evidence of a change in progress in spoken and written British English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108(1): 223–246.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T.
1969An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part Three, First Half: Syntactical Units with Two and with More Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Yadomi, Hiroshi
2015The regulation of the auxiliary do: Do-less negative declarative sentences in American English from 1800 to the present day. Zephyr 27: 44–70.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra
2010Semantic determinism and the grammaticalisation of have to in English: A reassessment. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11(1): 32–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar