Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:17:38.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geoffrey Leech, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair and Nicholas Smith, Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Pp. xxviii + 341. ISBN 978-0-521-86722-I.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2012

Elizabeth Closs Traugott
Elizabeth Closs Traugott*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150, USAtraugott@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 183 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Corpora (listed by acronym)

ARCHER. A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers, compiled by Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan. www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/research/projects/archer/Google Scholar
B-LOB. Before-LOB, The Lancaster 1931 Corpus, compiled by Geoffrey Leech, Paul Rayson and Nicholas Smith. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/BLOB-1931/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
BNC. The British National Corpus, subcorpus of speech. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Brown. A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers, compiled by W. N. Francis and H. Kučera. Brown University. Providence, Rhode Island. icame.uib.no/newcd.htmGoogle Scholar
COHA. The Corpus of Historical American English (1810–2009), compiled by Mark Davies, Brigham Young University. corpus.byu.edu/coha/Google Scholar
DCPSE. The Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day English, compiled by Bas Aarts and Sean Wallis, Survey of English Usage, University College London. www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/dcpse/Google Scholar
Frown. The Freiburg–Brown Corpus of American English, compiled under the direction of Christian Mair by Marianne Hundt, Andrea Sand and Paul Skandera. icame.uib.no/newcd.htmGoogle Scholar
F-LOB. The Freiburg–LOB Corpus of British English, compiled under the direction of Christian Mair by Marianne Hundt, Andrea Sand and Rainer Siemund, Englisches Seminar, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. icame.uib.no/newcd.htmGoogle Scholar
LCSAE. Longman Corpus of Spoken American English. www.pearsonlongman.com/dictionaries/corpus/spoken-american.htmlGoogle Scholar
LOB. The Lancaster–Oslo/Bergen Corpus, compiled under the direction of Geoffrey Leech and Stig Johansson by Eric Atwell and Roger Garside. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities. icame.uib.no/newcd.htmGoogle Scholar

References

Aitchison, Jean. 1991. Language change: Progress or decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitcheson, Jean & Lewis, Diana M. (eds.), New media language, 169–81. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. Forthcoming. Some methodological issues related to corpus-based investigations of recent syntactic changes in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), Handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996. The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400–1760). Diachronica 13, 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components, 19–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 1998. New Zealand English grammar, fact or fiction: A corpus-based study of morphosyntactic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303–18.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA (2nd, rev. edition of Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 1982).Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going to future in written English: A corpus-based investigation into language change in progress. In Hickey, Raymond & Puppel, Stanislaw (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2006. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus & Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000, 143–66. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2010. How synchronic gradience makes sense in the light of language change (and vice versa). In Traugott & Trousdale (eds.), 149–79.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. Watching English grammar change: A case study on complement selection in British and American English. English Language and Linguistics 10, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. London: Harvest Books (original publisher Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.).Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taeymans, Martine. 2004. An investigation into the marginal modals dare and need in British present-day English. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel & Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization, 97–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), 2010. Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar