Aarts, Flor and Aarts, Jan. 1982. English Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Adams, Eleanor N. 1917. Old English Scholarship in England from 1566–1800. (Yale Studies in English 55.) New Haven and London: Yale University Press and Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The Genitive ⅴ. the of-construction: a Study of Syntactic Variation in Seventeenth-century English. (Lund Studies in English 62.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Altick, Richard D. 1957. The English Common Reader: a Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800–1900. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Andersson, Herman. 1892. Some Remarks on the Use of Relative Pronouns in Modern English Prose. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Arnaud, René. 1973. La forme progressive en anglais du XIXe siècle. Lille. (No publisher.)Google Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. ‘The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: a Sociohistorical Discourse Analysis’. Language in Society 25, 333–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, Frances (ed). 1991. The Clift Family Correspondence 1792–1846. Sheffield: Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language.Google Scholar

Bäcklund, Ingegerd. 1984. Conjunction-headed Abbreviated Clauses in English. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 50.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Bailey, Richard W. 1996. Nineteenth-century English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Bailey, Richard W. 2003. ‘The Ideology of English in the Late Eighteenth Century’. In: Dossena, Marina, and Jones, Charles (eds.). Insights into Late Modern English, 21–44. (Linguistic Insights 7.) Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Baker, Carl L. 1995 [1989]. English Syntax. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-day English. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar

Barber, Charles. 1997 [1976]. Early Modern English. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change. An Introduction to the Study of Linguistic Change in Standard Englishes in the Twentieth Century. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in Modern Times: 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Besnier, Niko. 1989. ‘Literacy and Feelings: the Encoding of Affect in Nukulaelae Letters’. Text 9(1), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bevan, Favell. 1836. Reading without Tears, or, a Pleasant Mode of Learning to Read. London.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: a Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Burgess, Jena. 2000. ‘Historical Change in Language Use of Women and Men’. Journal of English Linguistics 28, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. ‘Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect’. Text 9(1), 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1997. ‘Diachronic Relations among Speech-based and Written Registers in English’. In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–75. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, and Atkinson, Dwight. 1994a. ‘ARCHER and Its Challenges: Compiling and Exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers’. In: Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel, and Schneider, Peter (eds.). Creating and Using English Language Corpora. Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zürich 1993, 1–13. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 13.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, Atkinson, Dwight, Beck, Ann, Burges, Dennis, and Burges, Jena. 1994b. ‘The Design and Analysis of the ARCHER Corpus: A Progress Report [A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers]’. In: Kytö, Merja, Rissanen, Matti, and Wright, Susan (eds.). Corpora across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, St Catharine's College Cambridge, 25–27 March 1993, 3–6. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 11.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar

Boulton, James T. (ed.). 1964. Of Dramatick Poesie. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bradshaw, John. 1965. A Concordance of the Poetical Works of Milton. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Brittain, Lewis. 1788. Rudiments of English Grammar. Louvain.Google Scholar

Brook, George Leslie. 1970. The Language of Dickens. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Brorström, Sverker. 1963. The Increasing Frequency of the Preposition about during the Modern English Period: with Special Reference to the Verbs Say, Tell, Talk, and Speak. (Stockholm Studies in English 9.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Buchanan, James. 1762. The British Grammar: or an Essay, in Four Parts, towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and Inditing Elegantly. London.Google Scholar

Burnet, James. 1773–92. Of the Origin and Progress of Language. 6 vols. London.Google Scholar

Caffyn, John. 1998. Sussex Schools in the Eighteenth Century: Schooling Provision, Schoolteachers and Scholars. Lewes: Sussex Record Society, No. 81.Google Scholar

Cannon, Charles D. 1959. ‘A Survey of the Subjunctive Mood in English’. American Speech 34, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, William B. 1875. The Microscope and Its Revelations. London: J. A. Churchill.Google Scholar

Cassell's New Latin–English, English–Latin Dictionary. 1975. 5th edn. London: Cassell.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1983. The Grammar Book. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1996. Women Talk. Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah. 1988. ‘Some Problems in the Sociolinguistic Explanation of Sex Differences’. In: Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah (eds.). Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex, 13–26. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Colquhoun, Patrick. 1806. A Treatise on Indigence. London.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

CONCE = A Corpus of Nineteenth-century English, compiled by Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Juhani Rudanko (University of Tampere).

Cook, Chris and Stevenson, John 1996. The Longman Handbook of Modern British History 1714–1995. 3rd edn. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Corson, David. 1985. The Lexical Bar. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Cruden, Alexander. 1737. Many editions since then, generally known as: Cruden's Concordance.Google Scholar

Curme, George O. 1931. A Grammar of the English Language. Volume II: Syntax. Boston: D.C.Heath and Company [reprint 1977. Verbatim Printing. Essex, CT].Google Scholar

Dekeyser, Xavier. 1975. Number and Case Relations in 19th Century British English: a Comparative Study of Grammar and Usage. Antwerp and Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1998. ‘Syntax’. In: Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dewe, Michael (ed.). 2002. Local Studies Collection Management. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Dilworth, Thomas. 1751. A New Guide to the English Tongue.Google Scholar

Dryden, John. 1668. Of Dramatick Poesie. See Boulton (1964).Google Scholar

Dryden, John. 1679. Troilus and Cressida. London: Jacob Tonson and Abel Swall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, Viv. 1990. A Directory of English Dialect Resources: the English Counties. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar

Eglesham, Wells. 1780. A Short Sketch of English Grammar. London.Google Scholar

Elliott, Ralph Warren Victor. 1984. Thomas Hardy's English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Encyclopædia Britannica. See ‘Woman Suffrage’.

Fairman, Tony. 1996. ‘Dick and Sal: or, Jack and Joanses Fair’. Antiquarian Book Monthly 23(3), 10–15.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 1999. ‘English Pauper Letters 1800–1834, and the English Language’. In: Barton, David and Hall, Nigel (eds). Letter Writing as a Social Practice, 63–82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2002a. ‘Mainstream English’. English Today 18(1), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2002b. ‘riting these fu lines: English Overseers’ Correspondence, 1800–1835'. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 112(3), 557–73.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2003. ‘Letters of the English Labouring Classes and the English Language, 1800–1835’. In: Dossena, Marina and Jones, Charles (eds.). Insights into Late Modern English, 265–82. (Linguistic Insights 7.) Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2005. ‘Schooling the Poor in Horsmonden, 1797–1816’. The Local Historian 35(2), 12–131.Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 1996. ‘On the Historical Development of English Retrospective Verbs’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97, 71–9.Google Scholar

Fell, John. 1784. An Essay towards an English Grammar. London.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga. 1992. ‘Syntax’. In: Blake, Norman (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. II: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, Henry Watson. 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Fowler, Henry Watson and Fowler, Francis George. 1908. The King's English. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara and Thompson, Sandra. 1990. ‘A Discourse Explanation of Relative Clauses in Conversation’. Language 66, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Francis, Gill, Hunston, Susan, and Manning, Elizabeth (eds.). 1996. Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles C. 1940. American English Grammar. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Geisler, Christer. 2002. ‘Investigating Register Variation in Nineteenth-century English: a Multi-dimensional Comparison’. In: Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M., and Biber, Douglas (eds.). Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, 249–71. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 9.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geisler, Christer. 2003. ‘Gender-based Variation in Nineteenth-century English Letter Writing’. In: Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, 87–106. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 46.) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Geisler, Christer and Johansson, Christine. 2002. ‘Relativization in Formal Spoken American English’. In: Modiano, Marko (ed.). Studies in Mid-Atlantic English, 87–109. Gävle: Gävle University Press.Google Scholar

Gerson, Stanley. 1967. Sound and Symbol in the Dialogue of the Works of Charles Dickens. (Stockholm Studies in English 19.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: a Function-based Introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1998. An Annotated Bibliography of Nineteenth-century Grammars of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in Nineteenth-century England: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 2001. Eighteenth-century English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Graham, Timothy (ed.). 2000. The Recovery of Old English: Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications.Google Scholar

Griggs, Earl Leslie (ed.). 1956–9. Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1988. ‘On the Language of Physical Science’. In: Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features, 162–78. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar

Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Harvie, Christopher. 2001. ‘Revolution and the Rule of Law (1789–1851)’. In: Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.). The Oxford History of Britain, 470–517. Revised edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corpus, Helsinki = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Hene, Birgitta. 1984. ‘Den dyrkade Lasse och stackars lilla Lotta’. (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 64.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2004. Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. ‘Using the OED Quotations Database as a Corpus – a Linguistic Appraisal’. ICAME Journal 28, 17–30.Google Scholar

Houston, Rab A. 1985. Scottish Literacy and the Scottish Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 1998. ‘It Is Important That This Study (Should) Be Based on the Analysis of Parallel Corpora: on the Use of the Mandative Subjunctive in Four Major Varieties of English’. In: Lindquist, Hans, Klintborg, Staffan, Levin, Magnus, and Estling, Maria (eds.). The Major Varieties of English, 159–75. (Acta Wexionensia. Humanities 1.) Växjö: Växjö University.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Sven. 1980. ‘Issues in the Study of Syntactic Variation’. In: Jacobson, Sven (ed.). Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, Stockholm, May 18–19, 1979, 23–36. (Stockholm Studies in English 52.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Bengt. 1963. ‘On the Use of That in Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses’. Moderna språk 57, 406–16.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Bengt. 1975. ‘How Dead Is the English Subjunctive?’Moderna språk 69, 218–31.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Bengt. 1994. ‘Nonrestrictive Relative That-clauses Revisited’. Studia Neophilologica 66(2), 181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1914. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part II: Syntax (Vol. I). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1961 [1940]. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V: Syntax (Vol. IV). London and Copenhagen: George Allen and Unwin and Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII: Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine. 1995. The Possessive Relativizers whose and of which in Present-day English. Description and Theory. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 90.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine. 1997. ‘The Positional Variation of the Possessive Relativizer of Which’. In: Fries, Udo, Müller, Viviane, and Schneider, Peter (eds.). From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English Corpus Linguistics, 51–64. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 19.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine. 2002. ‘Pied Piping and Stranding from a Diachronic Perspective’. In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter, and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research, 147–62. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 36.) Amsterdam and New York, NY: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine and Geisler, Christer. 1998. ‘Pied Piping in Spoken English’. In: Renouf, Antoinette (ed.). Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, 82–91. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 23.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language: in Which the Words Are Deduced from Their Originals, and Illustrated in Their Different Significations by Examples from the Best Writers. To Which Are Prefixed, a History of the Language, and an English Grammar. 2 vols. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar

J⊘rgensen, Erik. 1990. ‘Remember and Forget with Gerund and Infinitive Objects’. English Studies 71, 147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karlsson, Fred, Voutilainen, Atro, Heikkilä, Juha, and Anttila, Arto (eds.). 1995. Constraint Grammar: a Language-independent System for Parsing Unrestricted Text. (Natural Language Processing 4.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay-Shuttleworth, James. 1970 [1832]. The Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester. Reprint. London: Frank Cass & Co.Google Scholar

Kay-Shuttleworth, James. 1973 [1841]. Four Periods of Public Education as Reviewed in 1832, 1839, 1846, 1862. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar

Kingsley Kent, Susan. 1999. Gender and Power in Britain, 1640–1990. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kjellmer, Göran. 2002. ‘On Relative Which with Personal Reference’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 37, 17–38.Google Scholar

Knüpfer, Hans. 1922. ‘Die Anfänge der periphrastischen Komparation im Englischen’. Diss. Heidelberg. Also in Englische Studien 55 (1921), 321–89.Google Scholar

Koch, C. Friedrich. 1863–9. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Vols. I–III. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 2004. A Fresh Look at Late Modern English Dialect Syntax. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on the English Language in the Late Modern Period 1700–1900 (LMEC2), University of Vigo (Spain), 25–27 November 2004.

Kytö, Merja. 1996a. ‘“The Best and Most Excellentest Way”: the Rivalling Forms of Adjective Comparison in Late Middle and Early Modern English’. In: Svartvik, Jan (ed.). Words. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Lund, 25–26 August 1995, 123–44. (Konferenser 36.) Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1996b. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.

Kytö, Merja, and Romaine, Suzanne. 1997. ‘Competing Forms of Adjective Comparison in Modern English: What Could Be More Quicker and Easier and More Effective?’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 329–52. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. ‘Adjective Comparison and Standardisation Processes in American and British English from 1620 to the Present’. In: Wright, Laura (ed.). The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, 171–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja, Rudanko, Juhani, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2000. ‘Building a Bridge between the Present and the Past: a Corpus of 19th-century English’. ICAME Journal 24, 85–97. Available online at http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/journal.html.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II: Social Factors. (Language in Society 29.) Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1987. The Shape of English: Structure and History. London: J. M. Dent and Sons.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Culpeper, Jonathan. 1997. ‘The Comparison of Adjectives in Recent British English’. In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 353–73. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 2002. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd edn. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Leith, Dick. 1997. A Social History of English. 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Leneman, Leah. 1998. ‘A Truly National Movement: the View from outside London’. In: Joannou, Maroula and Purvis, June (eds.). The Women's Suffrage Movement. New Feminist Perspectives, 37–49. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. (Lund Studies in English 103.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Lewis, Jane. 1991. Women and Social Action in Victorian and Edwardian England. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Liardet, Frederick. 1838. Riot in Kent: Report Made to the Central Society of Education on the State of the Peasantry at Boughton, Herne-hill, and the Ville of Dunkirk near Canterbury. London.Google Scholar

Lindkvist, Karl-Gunnar. 1950. Studies on the Local Sense of the Prepositions in, at, on, and to, in Modern English. (Lund Studies in English 20.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Ljunggren, Wilhelm Philip Ferdinand. 1893–4. On the Auxiliaries Shall and Will in the English Language, Especially with Regard to Modern English. Vols. I–II. Diss. Lund. Carlskrona: Printed at Länsboktryckeriet.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Thomas Babington. 1907. Critical and Historical Essays. 2 vols. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 1988. ‘Syntactic Theory’. In: Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey, 18–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2002a. ‘Three Changing Patterns of Verb Complementation in Late Modern English: a Real-time Study Based on Matching Text Corpora’. English Language and Linguistics 6, 105–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2002b. ‘Gerundial Complements after Begin and Start: Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Factors, and How They Work against Each Other’. In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 329–45. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Matthew, H. C. G. 2001. ‘The Liberal Age (1851–1914)’. In: Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.). The Oxford History of Britain, 518–81. Revised edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mätzner, Eduard. 1860–5. Englische Grammatik. Vols. I–II. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Michael, Ian. 1987. The Teaching of English: from the Sixteenth Century to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moessner, Lilo. 2000. What Happened to the Subjunctive in Early Modern English? Paper presented at the Eleventh International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Santiago de Compostela (Spain), 7–11 September 2000.

Mondorf, Britta. 2002. ‘The Effect of Prepositional Complements on the Choice of Synthetic or Analytic Comparatives’. In: Cuyckens, Hubert and Radden, Günter (eds.). Perspectives on Prepositions, 65–78. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2003. ‘Support for More-support’. In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 251–304. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1795. English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York.Google Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1797. English Exercises. York.Google Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1804. An English Spelling-book; with Reading Lessons. York.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 23.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. 2nd edn. Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C., eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. http://dictionary.oed.com. (As accessed 2001.) (As cited in Grund and Walker, this volume.)

Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the Twentieth Century. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 94.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Page, Norman. 1972. The Language of Jane Austen. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Palmgren, Fredr. 1896. An Essay on the Use in Present English Prose of When, After, Since, As Introducing Temporal Clauses. Diss. Uppsala. Stockholm: Central Press.Google Scholar

Persson, Gunnar. 1990. Meanings, Models and Metaphors. A Study in Lexical Semantics in English. (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 92.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Perttunen, Jean Margaret. 1986. The Words Between. 2nd edn. Helsinki: Duodecim.Google Scholar

Peters, Pam. 1998. ‘The Survival of the Subjunctive: Evidence of Its Use in Australia and Elsewhere’. English World-wide 19(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillipps, Kenneth Charles. 1970. Jane Austen's English. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Phillipps, Kenneth Charles. 1978. The Language of Thackeray. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Phillipps, Kenneth Charles. 1984. Language and Class in Victorian England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1984. ‘The Modals Story Retold’. Studies in Language 8, 305–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polifke, Monika. 1999. Richard Mulcasters ‘Elementarie’: Eine kultur- und sprachhistorische Untersuchung. (Anglistische Forschungen 274.) Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Potter, Simeon. 1969. Changing English. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Pound, Louise. 1901. The Comparison of Adjectives in English in the XV and the XVI Century. (Anglistische Forschungen 7.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1914–29. A Grammar of Late Modern English. 2nd edn. (Part I), 1st edn. (Part II). Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1914. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech; Section I, A: Nouns, Adjectives and Articles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech; Section II: The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1926–9. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1929 [1905]. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part I: The Sentence. 2nd edn. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. MS. Dictionary of Constructions of Verbs, Adjectives, and Nouns. Unpublished. Copyright: Oxford University Press.

Quirk, Randolph. 1961a. The Study of the Mother Tongue: an Inaugural Lecture Delivered at University College London, 21 February 1961. London: H. K. Lewis and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph. 1961b. ‘Some Observations on the Language of Dickens’. A Review of English Literature 2, 19–28.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph. 1974. The Linguist and the English Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2002. ‘Stable Variation and Historical Linguistics’. In: Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, and Rissanen, Matti (eds.). Variation Past and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, 101–16. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 61.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Reay, Barry. 1996. Microhistories: Demography, Society and Culture in Rural England, 1800–1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Redford, Bruce (ed.). 1992. The Letters of Samuel Johnson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: a Functional Explanation. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Richards, Jack C. (ed.). 1974. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1984. ‘The Choice of Relative Pronouns in Seventeenth-century American English’. In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Historical Syntax, 419–35. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 23.) Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1986. ‘Variation and the Study of English Historical Syntax’. In: Sankoff, David (ed.). Diversity and Diachrony, 97–109. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. ‘Syntax’. In: Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, Eric (ed.). 1985. The Parish. London: Viking.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2004. The Role of Functional Constraints in the Evolution of the English Complementation System. Paper for the International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Vienna.

Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia. 2000. ‘Determinanten grammatischer Variation im Früh- und Spätneuenglischen’. Sprachwissenschaft 25, 443–96.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. ‘On the Problem of Syntactic Variation and Pragmatic Meaning in Sociolinguistic Theory’. Folia Linguistica XVIII(3–4), 409–37.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1998a. ‘Introduction’. In: Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997, 1–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. (ed.). 1998b. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1999. Communicating Gender. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1991. ‘On Verbs Governing in -ing in Present-day English’. English Studies 72, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1996. Prepositions and Complement Clauses: a Syntactic and Semantic Study of Verbs Governing Prepositions and Complement Clauses in Present-day English. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1999. Diachronic Studies of English Complementation Patterns: Eighteenth Century Evidence in Tracing the Development of Verbs and Adjectives Selecting Prepositions and Complement Clauses. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1966. Relative Constructions in Early Sixteenth Century English. With Special Reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 3.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1970. ‘Determiners and Relative Clauses’. English Studies 51, 47–52.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1974. ‘On Notional Relations in the Relative Clause Complex’. English Studies 55, 542–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1979. An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax. (Stockholm Studies in English 51.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1983. ‘The Emergence of Who as Relativizer’. Studia Linguistica 37, 126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1984. ‘När är en relativsats nödvändig?’Moderna språk 78, 19–22.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats and Brorström, Sverker. 1987. The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English: with Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. (Stockholm Studies in English 70.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Schibsbye, Knut. 1970 [1965]. A Modern English Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 1996a. ‘Constraints on the Loss of Case-marking in English Wh-pronouns. Four Hundred Years of Real-time Evidence’. In: Arnold, Jennifer, Blake, Renée, Davidston, Brad, Schwenter, Scott, and Solomon, Julie (eds.). Sociolinguistic Variation. Data, Theory and Analysis. Selected Papers from NWAV 23 at Stanford, 429–93. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Schneider, Edgar W. 1996b. ‘Towards Syntactic Isomorphism and Semantic Dissimilation: the Semantics and Syntax of Prospective Verbs in Early Modern English’. In: Britton, Derek (ed.). English Historical Linguistics 1994, 199–220. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 135.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serner, Gunnar. 1910. On the Language of Swinburne's Lyrics and Epics: A Study. Diss. Lund. Lund and Cambridge: Hjalmar Möller and W. Heffer and Sons.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlotta. 1964. ‘Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammar of English’. Language 40, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik. 2003. Multal Quantifiers in Nineteenth-century English. Paper presented at the 24th ICAME Conference, 23–27 April 2003, Guernsey.

Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in 19th-century English: a Process of Integration. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 54.) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Sopher, Haveem. 1974. ‘Prepositional Relative Clauses’. Linguistics 133, 63–83.Google Scholar

S⊘rensen, Knud. 1985. Charles Dickens: Linguistic Innovator. Aarhus: Arkona.Google Scholar

S⊘rensen, Knud. 1989. ‘Dickens on the Use of English’. English Studies 70, 551–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‘Statistical Inquiries of the Central Society of Education into the Social Condition of the Working Classes’. 1837. Central Society of Education Papers 1, 338–59.

Stein, Gabrielle. 1997. John Palsgrave as Renaissance Linguist: a Pioneer in Vernacular Language Description. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Stephens, William B. 1987. Education, Literacy and Society, 1830–1870: the Geography of Diversity in Provincial England. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Stitt, Megan Perigoe. 1998. Metaphors of Change in the Language of Nineteenth-century Fiction: Scott, Gaskell, and Kingsley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stokes, Myra. 1991. The Language of Jane Austen: a Study of Some Aspects of Her Vocabulary. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Storey, Mark (ed.). 1985. The Letters of John Clare. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Sundby, Bertil, Bj⊘rge, Anne Kari, and Haugland, Kari E. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700–1900. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Super, R. H. (ed.). 1962. The Complete Prose Works of Matthew Arnold. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Sutherland, Robert D. 1970. Language and Lewis Carroll. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svensson, Patrik. 1998. Number and Countability in English Nouns: an Embodied Model. (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 142.) Uppsala: Swedish Science Press.Google Scholar

Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English Usage. 2nd edn. Oxford, New York and Athens: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sweet, Henry. 1891–8. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 1994. ‘On the Evolution of Scientific Writings from 1375 to 1675: Repertoire of Emotive Features’. In: Fernández, Francisco, Fuster, Miguel, and Calvo, Juan José (eds.). English Historical Linguistics 1992, 329–42. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 2001. ‘Discovering the Usual with Corpora: the Case of Remember’. In: Simpson, Rita C. and Swales, John M. (eds.). Corpus Linguistics in North America, 116–44. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: an Introduction to Language and Society. 4th edn. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2001. ‘Third-person Singular Zero: African-American English, East Anglian Dialects and Spanish Persecution in the Low Countries’. In: Fisiak, Jacek and Trudgill, Peter (eds.). East Anglian English, 179–86. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar

Visser, F. Th. 1963–73. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Visser, F. Th. 1966. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part 2: Syntactical Units with One Verb (Continued). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Vosberg, Uwe. 2003. ‘The Role of Extractions and Horror Aequi in the Evolution of –ing Complements in Modern English’. In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 305–27. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vyse, Charles. 1791. The New London Spelling-book. (In print in several editions from 1776–1850.)Google Scholar

Walker, John. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. London.Google Scholar

Walker, Terry. 2005. ‘Second Person Singular Pronouns in Early Modern English Dialogues 1560–1760’. PhD thesis, Uppsala University.

Wallin-Ashcroft, Anna-Lena. 2000. ‘Great Men and Charming Creatures’. PhD thesis, Umeå University.

Warren, Beatrice. 1984. Classifying Adjectives. (Gothenburg Studies in English 56.) Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1999. ‘The Social Construction of Standard English: Grammar Writers as a “Discourse Community”’. In: Bex, Tony and Watts, Richard J. (eds.). Standard English: The Widening Debate, 40–68. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. 1989. Gilman, E. Ward, ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster.Google Scholar

Western, August. 1897. Om brugen af can, may og must: en sproghistorisk unders⊘gelse. (Videnskabsselskabets Skrifter (II), Historisk-filosofisk Klasse, 1897:1.) Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar

Westin, Ingrid. 2002. Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 44.) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

‘Woman Suffrage’. Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?tocId=9077370> [Accessed 29 January 2005].

Wyld, H. C. 1936 [1920]. A History of Modern Colloquial English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yeo, Richard. 1981. ‘Scientific Method and the Image of Science 1831–1890’. In: MacLeod, Roy and Collins, Peter (eds.). The Parliament of Science, 65–88. Northwood: Science Reviews.Google Scholar

Zandvoort, R. W. 1948. A Handbook of English Grammar. 3rd edn. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar

Aarts, Flor and Aarts, Jan. 1982. English Syntactic Structures. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Adams, Eleanor N. 1917. Old English Scholarship in England from 1566–1800. (Yale Studies in English 55.) New Haven and London: Yale University Press and Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The Genitive ⅴ. the of-construction: a Study of Syntactic Variation in Seventeenth-century English. (Lund Studies in English 62.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Altick, Richard D. 1957. The English Common Reader: a Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800–1900. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Andersson, Herman. 1892. Some Remarks on the Use of Relative Pronouns in Modern English Prose. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Arnaud, René. 1973. La forme progressive en anglais du XIXe siècle. Lille. (No publisher.)Google Scholar

Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. ‘The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: a Sociohistorical Discourse Analysis’. Language in Society 25, 333–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Austin, Frances (ed). 1991. The Clift Family Correspondence 1792–1846. Sheffield: Centre for English Cultural Tradition and Language.Google Scholar

Bäcklund, Ingegerd. 1984. Conjunction-headed Abbreviated Clauses in English. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 50.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Bailey, Richard W. 1996. Nineteenth-century English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Bailey, Richard W. 2003. ‘The Ideology of English in the Late Eighteenth Century’. In: Dossena, Marina, and Jones, Charles (eds.). Insights into Late Modern English, 21–44. (Linguistic Insights 7.) Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Baker, Carl L. 1995 [1989]. English Syntax. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-day English. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar

Barber, Charles. 1997 [1976]. Early Modern English. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change. An Introduction to the Study of Linguistic Change in Standard Englishes in the Twentieth Century. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in Modern Times: 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Besnier, Niko. 1989. ‘Literacy and Feelings: the Encoding of Affect in Nukulaelae Letters’. Text 9(1), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bevan, Favell. 1836. Reading without Tears, or, a Pleasant Mode of Learning to Read. London.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: a Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Burgess, Jena. 2000. ‘Historical Change in Language Use of Women and Men’. Journal of English Linguistics 28, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward. 1989. ‘Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect’. Text 9(1), 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1997. ‘Diachronic Relations among Speech-based and Written Registers in English’. In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–75. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, and Atkinson, Dwight. 1994a. ‘ARCHER and Its Challenges: Compiling and Exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers’. In: Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel, and Schneider, Peter (eds.). Creating and Using English Language Corpora. Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Zürich 1993, 1–13. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 13.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward, Atkinson, Dwight, Beck, Ann, Burges, Dennis, and Burges, Jena. 1994b. ‘The Design and Analysis of the ARCHER Corpus: A Progress Report [A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers]’. In: Kytö, Merja, Rissanen, Matti, and Wright, Susan (eds.). Corpora across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora, St Catharine's College Cambridge, 25–27 March 1993, 3–6. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 11.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar

Boulton, James T. (ed.). 1964. Of Dramatick Poesie. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bradshaw, John. 1965. A Concordance of the Poetical Works of Milton. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Brittain, Lewis. 1788. Rudiments of English Grammar. Louvain.Google Scholar

Brook, George Leslie. 1970. The Language of Dickens. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Brorström, Sverker. 1963. The Increasing Frequency of the Preposition about during the Modern English Period: with Special Reference to the Verbs Say, Tell, Talk, and Speak. (Stockholm Studies in English 9.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Buchanan, James. 1762. The British Grammar: or an Essay, in Four Parts, towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically, and Inditing Elegantly. London.Google Scholar

Burnet, James. 1773–92. Of the Origin and Progress of Language. 6 vols. London.Google Scholar

Caffyn, John. 1998. Sussex Schools in the Eighteenth Century: Schooling Provision, Schoolteachers and Scholars. Lewes: Sussex Record Society, No. 81.Google Scholar

Cannon, Charles D. 1959. ‘A Survey of the Subjunctive Mood in English’. American Speech 34, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, William B. 1875. The Microscope and Its Revelations. London: J. A. Churchill.Google Scholar

Cassell's New Latin–English, English–Latin Dictionary. 1975. 5th edn. London: Cassell.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1983. The Grammar Book. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer. 1996. Women Talk. Conversation between Women Friends. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah. 1988. ‘Some Problems in the Sociolinguistic Explanation of Sex Differences’. In: Coates, Jennifer and Cameron, Deborah (eds.). Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex, 13–26. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Colquhoun, Patrick. 1806. A Treatise on Indigence. London.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

CONCE = A Corpus of Nineteenth-century English, compiled by Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Juhani Rudanko (University of Tampere).

Cook, Chris and Stevenson, John 1996. The Longman Handbook of Modern British History 1714–1995. 3rd edn. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Corson, David. 1985. The Lexical Bar. Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Cruden, Alexander. 1737. Many editions since then, generally known as: Cruden's Concordance.Google Scholar

Curme, George O. 1931. A Grammar of the English Language. Volume II: Syntax. Boston: D.C.Heath and Company [reprint 1977. Verbatim Printing. Essex, CT].Google Scholar

Dekeyser, Xavier. 1975. Number and Case Relations in 19th Century British English: a Comparative Study of Grammar and Usage. Antwerp and Amsterdam: Uitgeverij De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1998. ‘Syntax’. In: Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dewe, Michael (ed.). 2002. Local Studies Collection Management. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Dilworth, Thomas. 1751. A New Guide to the English Tongue.Google Scholar

Dryden, John. 1668. Of Dramatick Poesie. See Boulton (1964).Google Scholar

Dryden, John. 1679. Troilus and Cressida. London: Jacob Tonson and Abel Swall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, Viv. 1990. A Directory of English Dialect Resources: the English Counties. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar

Eglesham, Wells. 1780. A Short Sketch of English Grammar. London.Google Scholar

Elliott, Ralph Warren Victor. 1984. Thomas Hardy's English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Encyclopædia Britannica. See ‘Woman Suffrage’.

Fairman, Tony. 1996. ‘Dick and Sal: or, Jack and Joanses Fair’. Antiquarian Book Monthly 23(3), 10–15.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 1999. ‘English Pauper Letters 1800–1834, and the English Language’. In: Barton, David and Hall, Nigel (eds). Letter Writing as a Social Practice, 63–82. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2002a. ‘Mainstream English’. English Today 18(1), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2002b. ‘riting these fu lines: English Overseers’ Correspondence, 1800–1835'. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 112(3), 557–73.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2003. ‘Letters of the English Labouring Classes and the English Language, 1800–1835’. In: Dossena, Marina and Jones, Charles (eds.). Insights into Late Modern English, 265–82. (Linguistic Insights 7.) Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Fairman, Tony. 2005. ‘Schooling the Poor in Horsmonden, 1797–1816’. The Local Historian 35(2), 12–131.Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 1996. ‘On the Historical Development of English Retrospective Verbs’. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97, 71–9.Google Scholar

Fell, John. 1784. An Essay towards an English Grammar. London.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga. 1992. ‘Syntax’. In: Blake, Norman (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. II: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fowler, Henry Watson. 1926. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Fowler, Henry Watson and Fowler, Francis George. 1908. The King's English. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara and Thompson, Sandra. 1990. ‘A Discourse Explanation of Relative Clauses in Conversation’. Language 66, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Francis, Gill, Hunston, Susan, and Manning, Elizabeth (eds.). 1996. Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Fries, Charles C. 1940. American English Grammar. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar

Geisler, Christer. 2002. ‘Investigating Register Variation in Nineteenth-century English: a Multi-dimensional Comparison’. In: Reppen, Randi, Fitzmaurice, Susan M., and Biber, Douglas (eds.). Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation, 249–71. (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 9.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geisler, Christer. 2003. ‘Gender-based Variation in Nineteenth-century English Letter Writing’. In: Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, 87–106. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 46.) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Geisler, Christer and Johansson, Christine. 2002. ‘Relativization in Formal Spoken American English’. In: Modiano, Marko (ed.). Studies in Mid-Atlantic English, 87–109. Gävle: Gävle University Press.Google Scholar

Gerson, Stanley. 1967. Sound and Symbol in the Dialogue of the Works of Charles Dickens. (Stockholm Studies in English 19.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: a Function-based Introduction. 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1998. An Annotated Bibliography of Nineteenth-century Grammars of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in Nineteenth-century England: an Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görlach, Manfred. 2001. Eighteenth-century English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Graham, Timothy (ed.). 2000. The Recovery of Old English: Anglo-Saxon Studies in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications.Google Scholar

Griggs, Earl Leslie (ed.). 1956–9. Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 6 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1988. ‘On the Language of Physical Science’. In: Ghadessy, Mohsen (ed.). Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features, 162–78. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar

Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Harvie, Christopher. 2001. ‘Revolution and the Rule of Law (1789–1851)’. In: Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.). The Oxford History of Britain, 470–517. Revised edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corpus, Helsinki = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Hene, Birgitta. 1984. ‘Den dyrkade Lasse och stackars lilla Lotta’. (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 64.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2004. Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. ‘Using the OED Quotations Database as a Corpus – a Linguistic Appraisal’. ICAME Journal 28, 17–30.Google Scholar

Houston, Rab A. 1985. Scottish Literacy and the Scottish Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne. 1998. ‘It Is Important That This Study (Should) Be Based on the Analysis of Parallel Corpora: on the Use of the Mandative Subjunctive in Four Major Varieties of English’. In: Lindquist, Hans, Klintborg, Staffan, Levin, Magnus, and Estling, Maria (eds.). The Major Varieties of English, 159–75. (Acta Wexionensia. Humanities 1.) Växjö: Växjö University.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Sven. 1980. ‘Issues in the Study of Syntactic Variation’. In: Jacobson, Sven (ed.). Papers from the Scandinavian Symposium on Syntactic Variation, Stockholm, May 18–19, 1979, 23–36. (Stockholm Studies in English 52.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Bengt. 1963. ‘On the Use of That in Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses’. Moderna språk 57, 406–16.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Bengt. 1975. ‘How Dead Is the English Subjunctive?’Moderna språk 69, 218–31.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, Bengt. 1994. ‘Nonrestrictive Relative That-clauses Revisited’. Studia Neophilologica 66(2), 181–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1914. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part II: Syntax (Vol. I). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1961 [1940]. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part V: Syntax (Vol. IV). London and Copenhagen: George Allen and Unwin and Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VII: Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine. 1995. The Possessive Relativizers whose and of which in Present-day English. Description and Theory. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 90.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine. 1997. ‘The Positional Variation of the Possessive Relativizer of Which’. In: Fries, Udo, Müller, Viviane, and Schneider, Peter (eds.). From Ælfric to the New York Times: Studies in English Corpus Linguistics, 51–64. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 19.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine. 2002. ‘Pied Piping and Stranding from a Diachronic Perspective’. In: Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter, and Smith, Adam (eds.). New Frontiers of Corpus Research, 147–62. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 36.) Amsterdam and New York, NY: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christine and Geisler, Christer. 1998. ‘Pied Piping in Spoken English’. In: Renouf, Antoinette (ed.). Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, 82–91. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 23.) Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Johnson, Samuel. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language: in Which the Words Are Deduced from Their Originals, and Illustrated in Their Different Significations by Examples from the Best Writers. To Which Are Prefixed, a History of the Language, and an English Grammar. 2 vols. London: W. Strahan.Google Scholar

J⊘rgensen, Erik. 1990. ‘Remember and Forget with Gerund and Infinitive Objects’. English Studies 71, 147–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karlsson, Fred, Voutilainen, Atro, Heikkilä, Juha, and Anttila, Arto (eds.). 1995. Constraint Grammar: a Language-independent System for Parsing Unrestricted Text. (Natural Language Processing 4.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay-Shuttleworth, James. 1970 [1832]. The Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes Employed in the Cotton Manufacture in Manchester. Reprint. London: Frank Cass & Co.Google Scholar

Kay-Shuttleworth, James. 1973 [1841]. Four Periods of Public Education as Reviewed in 1832, 1839, 1846, 1862. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar

Keenan, Edward and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar

Kingsley Kent, Susan. 1999. Gender and Power in Britain, 1640–1990. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kjellmer, Göran. 2002. ‘On Relative Which with Personal Reference’. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 37, 17–38.Google Scholar

Knüpfer, Hans. 1922. ‘Die Anfänge der periphrastischen Komparation im Englischen’. Diss. Heidelberg. Also in Englische Studien 55 (1921), 321–89.Google Scholar

Koch, C. Friedrich. 1863–9. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Vols. I–III. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 2004. A Fresh Look at Late Modern English Dialect Syntax. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on the English Language in the Late Modern Period 1700–1900 (LMEC2), University of Vigo (Spain), 25–27 November 2004.

Kytö, Merja. 1996a. ‘“The Best and Most Excellentest Way”: the Rivalling Forms of Adjective Comparison in Late Middle and Early Modern English’. In: Svartvik, Jan (ed.). Words. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Lund, 25–26 August 1995, 123–44. (Konferenser 36.) Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1996b. Manual to the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts. 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.

Kytö, Merja, and Romaine, Suzanne. 1997. ‘Competing Forms of Adjective Comparison in Modern English: What Could Be More Quicker and Easier and More Effective?’ In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 329–52. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, and Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. ‘Adjective Comparison and Standardisation Processes in American and British English from 1620 to the Present’. In: Wright, Laura (ed.). The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts, 171–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja, Rudanko, Juhani, and Smitterberg, Erik. 2000. ‘Building a Bridge between the Present and the Past: a Corpus of 19th-century English’. ICAME Journal 24, 85–97. Available online at http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/journal.html.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II: Social Factors. (Language in Society 29.) Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1975. Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1987. The Shape of English: Structure and History. London: J. M. Dent and Sons.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Culpeper, Jonathan. 1997. ‘The Comparison of Adjectives in Recent British English’. In: Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 353–73. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 52.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 2002. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd edn. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Leith, Dick. 1997. A Social History of English. 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Leneman, Leah. 1998. ‘A Truly National Movement: the View from outside London’. In: Joannou, Maroula and Purvis, June (eds.). The Women's Suffrage Movement. New Feminist Perspectives, 37–49. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with Collective Nouns in English. (Lund Studies in English 103.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Lewis, Jane. 1991. Women and Social Action in Victorian and Edwardian England. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Liardet, Frederick. 1838. Riot in Kent: Report Made to the Central Society of Education on the State of the Peasantry at Boughton, Herne-hill, and the Ville of Dunkirk near Canterbury. London.Google Scholar

Lindkvist, Karl-Gunnar. 1950. Studies on the Local Sense of the Prepositions in, at, on, and to, in Modern English. (Lund Studies in English 20.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Ljunggren, Wilhelm Philip Ferdinand. 1893–4. On the Auxiliaries Shall and Will in the English Language, Especially with Regard to Modern English. Vols. I–II. Diss. Lund. Carlskrona: Printed at Länsboktryckeriet.Google Scholar

Macaulay, Thomas Babington. 1907. Critical and Historical Essays. 2 vols. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 1988. ‘Syntactic Theory’. In: Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.). Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey, 18–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2002a. ‘Three Changing Patterns of Verb Complementation in Late Modern English: a Real-time Study Based on Matching Text Corpora’. English Language and Linguistics 6, 105–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2002b. ‘Gerundial Complements after Begin and Start: Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Factors, and How They Work against Each Other’. In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 329–45. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Matthew, H. C. G. 2001. ‘The Liberal Age (1851–1914)’. In: Morgan, Kenneth O. (ed.). The Oxford History of Britain, 518–81. Revised edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mätzner, Eduard. 1860–5. Englische Grammatik. Vols. I–II. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar

Michael, Ian. 1987. The Teaching of English: from the Sixteenth Century to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moessner, Lilo. 2000. What Happened to the Subjunctive in Early Modern English? Paper presented at the Eleventh International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Santiago de Compostela (Spain), 7–11 September 2000.

Mondorf, Britta. 2002. ‘The Effect of Prepositional Complements on the Choice of Synthetic or Analytic Comparatives’. In: Cuyckens, Hubert and Radden, Günter (eds.). Perspectives on Prepositions, 65–78. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2003. ‘Support for More-support’. In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 251–304. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1795. English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York.Google Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1797. English Exercises. York.Google Scholar

Murray, Lindley. 1804. An English Spelling-book; with Reading Lessons. York.Google Scholar

Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 23.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. 2nd edn. Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C., eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. http://dictionary.oed.com. (As accessed 2001.) (As cited in Grund and Walker, this volume.)

Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the Twentieth Century. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 94.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Page, Norman. 1972. The Language of Jane Austen. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Palmgren, Fredr. 1896. An Essay on the Use in Present English Prose of When, After, Since, As Introducing Temporal Clauses. Diss. Uppsala. Stockholm: Central Press.Google Scholar

Persson, Gunnar. 1990. Meanings, Models and Metaphors. A Study in Lexical Semantics in English. (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 92.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Perttunen, Jean Margaret. 1986. The Words Between. 2nd edn. Helsinki: Duodecim.Google Scholar

Peters, Pam. 1998. ‘The Survival of the Subjunctive: Evidence of Its Use in Australia and Elsewhere’. English World-wide 19(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillipps, Kenneth Charles. 1970. Jane Austen's English. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Phillipps, Kenneth Charles. 1978. The Language of Thackeray. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Phillipps, Kenneth Charles. 1984. Language and Class in Victorian England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1984. ‘The Modals Story Retold’. Studies in Language 8, 305–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polifke, Monika. 1999. Richard Mulcasters ‘Elementarie’: Eine kultur- und sprachhistorische Untersuchung. (Anglistische Forschungen 274.) Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Potter, Simeon. 1969. Changing English. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar

Pound, Louise. 1901. The Comparison of Adjectives in English in the XV and the XVI Century. (Anglistische Forschungen 7.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1914–29. A Grammar of Late Modern English. 2nd edn. (Part I), 1st edn. (Part II). Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1914. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech; Section I, A: Nouns, Adjectives and Articles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II: The Parts of Speech; Section II: The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1926–9. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. 1929 [1905]. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part I: The Sentence. 2nd edn. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Poutsma, H. MS. Dictionary of Constructions of Verbs, Adjectives, and Nouns. Unpublished. Copyright: Oxford University Press.

Quirk, Randolph. 1961a. The Study of the Mother Tongue: an Inaugural Lecture Delivered at University College London, 21 February 1961. London: H. K. Lewis and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph. 1961b. ‘Some Observations on the Language of Dickens’. A Review of English Literature 2, 19–28.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph. 1974. The Linguist and the English Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2002. ‘Stable Variation and Historical Linguistics’. In: Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, and Rissanen, Matti (eds.). Variation Past and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen, 101–16. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 61.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Reay, Barry. 1996. Microhistories: Demography, Society and Culture in Rural England, 1800–1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Redford, Bruce (ed.). 1992. The Letters of Samuel Johnson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: a Functional Explanation. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Richards, Jack C. (ed.). 1974. Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1984. ‘The Choice of Relative Pronouns in Seventeenth-century American English’. In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). Historical Syntax, 419–35. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 23.) Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1986. ‘Variation and the Study of English Historical Syntax’. In: Sankoff, David (ed.). Diversity and Diachrony, 97–109. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 53.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. ‘Syntax’. In: Lass, Roger (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, Eric (ed.). 1985. The Parish. London: Viking.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2004. The Role of Functional Constraints in the Evolution of the English Complementation System. Paper for the International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Vienna.

Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia. 2000. ‘Determinanten grammatischer Variation im Früh- und Spätneuenglischen’. Sprachwissenschaft 25, 443–96.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. ‘On the Problem of Syntactic Variation and Pragmatic Meaning in Sociolinguistic Theory’. Folia Linguistica XVIII(3–4), 409–37.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1998a. ‘Introduction’. In: Romaine, Suzanne (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997, 1–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. (ed.). 1998b. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1999. Communicating Gender. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1991. ‘On Verbs Governing in -ing in Present-day English’. English Studies 72, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1996. Prepositions and Complement Clauses: a Syntactic and Semantic Study of Verbs Governing Prepositions and Complement Clauses in Present-day English. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 1999. Diachronic Studies of English Complementation Patterns: Eighteenth Century Evidence in Tracing the Development of Verbs and Adjectives Selecting Prepositions and Complement Clauses. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1966. Relative Constructions in Early Sixteenth Century English. With Special Reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 3.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1970. ‘Determiners and Relative Clauses’. English Studies 51, 47–52.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1974. ‘On Notional Relations in the Relative Clause Complex’. English Studies 55, 542–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1979. An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax. (Stockholm Studies in English 51.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1983. ‘The Emergence of Who as Relativizer’. Studia Linguistica 37, 126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rydén, Mats. 1984. ‘När är en relativsats nödvändig?’Moderna språk 78, 19–22.Google Scholar

Rydén, Mats and Brorström, Sverker. 1987. The Be/Have Variation with Intransitives in English: with Special Reference to the Late Modern Period. (Stockholm Studies in English 70.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Schibsbye, Knut. 1970 [1965]. A Modern English Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 1996a. ‘Constraints on the Loss of Case-marking in English Wh-pronouns. Four Hundred Years of Real-time Evidence’. In: Arnold, Jennifer, Blake, Renée, Davidston, Brad, Schwenter, Scott, and Solomon, Julie (eds.). Sociolinguistic Variation. Data, Theory and Analysis. Selected Papers from NWAV 23 at Stanford, 429–93. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Schneider, Edgar W. 1996b. ‘Towards Syntactic Isomorphism and Semantic Dissimilation: the Semantics and Syntax of Prospective Verbs in Early Modern English’. In: Britton, Derek (ed.). English Historical Linguistics 1994, 199–220. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 135.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Serner, Gunnar. 1910. On the Language of Swinburne's Lyrics and Epics: A Study. Diss. Lund. Lund and Cambridge: Hjalmar Möller and W. Heffer and Sons.Google Scholar

Smith, Carlotta. 1964. ‘Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammar of English’. Language 40, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smitterberg, Erik. 2003. Multal Quantifiers in Nineteenth-century English. Paper presented at the 24th ICAME Conference, 23–27 April 2003, Guernsey.

Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The Progressive in 19th-century English: a Process of Integration. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 54.) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Sopher, Haveem. 1974. ‘Prepositional Relative Clauses’. Linguistics 133, 63–83.Google Scholar

S⊘rensen, Knud. 1985. Charles Dickens: Linguistic Innovator. Aarhus: Arkona.Google Scholar

S⊘rensen, Knud. 1989. ‘Dickens on the Use of English’. English Studies 70, 551–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

‘Statistical Inquiries of the Central Society of Education into the Social Condition of the Working Classes’. 1837. Central Society of Education Papers 1, 338–59.

Stein, Gabrielle. 1997. John Palsgrave as Renaissance Linguist: a Pioneer in Vernacular Language Description. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Stephens, William B. 1987. Education, Literacy and Society, 1830–1870: the Geography of Diversity in Provincial England. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Stitt, Megan Perigoe. 1998. Metaphors of Change in the Language of Nineteenth-century Fiction: Scott, Gaskell, and Kingsley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stokes, Myra. 1991. The Language of Jane Austen: a Study of Some Aspects of Her Vocabulary. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Storey, Mark (ed.). 1985. The Letters of John Clare. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Sundby, Bertil, Bj⊘rge, Anne Kari, and Haugland, Kari E. 1991. A Dictionary of English Normative Grammar 1700–1900. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Super, R. H. (ed.). 1962. The Complete Prose Works of Matthew Arnold. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Sutherland, Robert D. 1970. Language and Lewis Carroll. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svensson, Patrik. 1998. Number and Countability in English Nouns: an Embodied Model. (Umeå Studies in the Humanities 142.) Uppsala: Swedish Science Press.Google Scholar

Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English Usage. 2nd edn. Oxford, New York and Athens: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sweet, Henry. 1891–8. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, Irma. 1994. ‘On the Evolution of Scientific Writings from 1375 to 1675: Repertoire of Emotive Features’. In: Fernández, Francisco, Fuster, Miguel, and Calvo, Juan José (eds.). English Historical Linguistics 1992, 329–42. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tao, Hongyin. 2001. ‘Discovering the Usual with Corpora: the Case of Remember’. In: Simpson, Rita C. and Swales, John M. (eds.). Corpus Linguistics in North America, 116–44. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: an Introduction to Language and Society. 4th edn. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2001. ‘Third-person Singular Zero: African-American English, East Anglian Dialects and Spanish Persecution in the Low Countries’. In: Fisiak, Jacek and Trudgill, Peter (eds.). East Anglian English, 179–86. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar

Visser, F. Th. 1963–73. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Visser, F. Th. 1966. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part 2: Syntactical Units with One Verb (Continued). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Vosberg, Uwe. 2003. ‘The Role of Extractions and Horror Aequi in the Evolution of –ing Complements in Modern English’. In: Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 305–27. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vyse, Charles. 1791. The New London Spelling-book. (In print in several editions from 1776–1850.)Google Scholar

Walker, John. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary. London.Google Scholar

Walker, Terry. 2005. ‘Second Person Singular Pronouns in Early Modern English Dialogues 1560–1760’. PhD thesis, Uppsala University.

Wallin-Ashcroft, Anna-Lena. 2000. ‘Great Men and Charming Creatures’. PhD thesis, Umeå University.

Warren, Beatrice. 1984. Classifying Adjectives. (Gothenburg Studies in English 56.) Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1999. ‘The Social Construction of Standard English: Grammar Writers as a “Discourse Community”’. In: Bex, Tony and Watts, Richard J. (eds.). Standard English: The Widening Debate, 40–68. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. 1989. Gilman, E. Ward, ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster.Google Scholar

Western, August. 1897. Om brugen af can, may og must: en sproghistorisk unders⊘gelse. (Videnskabsselskabets Skrifter (II), Historisk-filosofisk Klasse, 1897:1.) Kristiania: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar

Westin, Ingrid. 2002. Language Change in English Newspaper Editorials. (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 44.) Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

‘Woman Suffrage’. Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?tocId=9077370> [Accessed 29 January 2005].

Wyld, H. C. 1936 [1920]. A History of Modern Colloquial English. 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Yeo, Richard. 1981. ‘Scientific Method and the Image of Science 1831–1890’. In: MacLeod, Roy and Collins, Peter (eds.). The Parliament of Science, 65–88. Northwood: Science Reviews.Google Scholar

Zandvoort, R. W. 1948. A Handbook of English Grammar. 3rd edn. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar