Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T03:21:27.996Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Special issue on support strategies in language variation and change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

BRITTA MONDORF  and
JAVIER PÉREZ-GUERRA
BRITTA MONDORF
Affiliation:
Department of English and Linguistics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Jakob-Welder-Weg 18, 55128 Mainz, Germanymondorf@uni-mainz.de
JAVIER PÉREZ-GUERRA
Affiliation:
Department of English, French and German, University of Vigo, FFT. Campus Universitario, E–36310 Vigo, Spainjperez@uvigo.es
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
Introduction
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 383 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert. 1997. Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28 (1), 119–64.Google Scholar
Croft, William 1990 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 457–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufter, Andreas, Fleischer, Jürg & Seiler, Guido (eds.). 2009. Describing and modeling variation in grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1969. Tun als Hilfsverb im heutigen Deutsch. In Engel, Ulrich, Grebe, Paul & Rupp, Heinz (eds.), Festschrift für Hugo Moser, 46–52. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.). 2002. English historical syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (1984, 1990) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vols. I and II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Grammatical variation in English: A question of ‘structure vs function’? In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 155–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics 12 (3), 395–417.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61, 23–62.Google Scholar
Jäger, Siegfried. 1971. Der Konjunktiv in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Untersuchungen an ausgewählten Texten. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 1999. Still sat in your car? Pseudo-passives with sat and stood and the history of non-standard varieties of English English. Sociolinguistica 13, 129–40.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, Schneider, Edgar, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend & Upton, Clive (eds.). 2004. A handbook of varieties of English. 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1978. Where does the linguistic variable stop? A reply to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 44, 1–22.Google Scholar
Langer, Stefan. 2004. A linguistic test battery for support verb constructions. Lingvisticae Investigationes 27, 171–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lastra, Yolanda & Butragueño, Pedro Martin. 2010. Futuro perifrástico y futuro morfológico en el Corpus Sociolingüístico de la ciudad de México. Oralia 13, 145–71.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7, 171–83.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Maguire, Warren & McMahon, April (eds.). 2011. Analysing variation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela. 2003. The textlinguistic dimension of corpus linguistics: The support function of English general nouns and its theoretical implications. International Journal of English Corpus Linguistics 8 (1), 97−108.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2010. Genre-effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. In Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Wanner, Anja (eds.), Approaches to syntactic variation and genre, 219−45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2014. (Apparently) competing motivations in morpho-syntactic variation. In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 209−28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 2016. Do you investigate word order in detail or do you investigate in detail word order? On word order and headedness in the recent history of English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12 (1), 103−28.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter & Smith, Adam (eds.). 2009. Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1986. Phonologisch und morphologisch bedingte Variation in der Verbalsyntax des Niederdeutschen. Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 109, 86−117.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg & Mondorf (eds.), 205–49.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.). 2003. Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.). 2009. One language – two grammars? Grammatical differences between British and American. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1981. On the problem of syntactic variation: A reply to Beatriz Lavandera and William Labov. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics 82, 1–38.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Rohdenburg & Mondorf (eds.), 379–412.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. The conditional subjunctive. In Rohdenburg & Schlüter (eds.), 277–305.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change: Aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31, 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (1), 113–50.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar