Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T17:13:37.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Alexandra D'Arcy  and
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Alexandra D'Arcy
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Sali A. Tagliamonte
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Written and spoken language are known to differ substantially (Biber, 1988; 1995; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, & Finegan, 1999). Standard written language is highly uniform and governed by prescription, whereas the vernacular is most revealing of structured heterogeneity (Weinreich, Labov, & Herzog, 1968). We focus on four English morphosyntactic variables that problematize assumptions about the nature of variation in the vernacular: the genitive, the comparative, the dative, and relative pronouns. Each is characterized in casual speech by functional divides that reflect discrete configurations of variant use. After detailing the patterning of these variables in speech, we explore a characteristic arguably shared by each: its historical pathway into the language, where analogy and prestige were powerful motivations for variant choice. We suggest that this combination of systemic and social factors contributed to the nature of these variables in the vernacular grammar. Furthermore, we advocate for greater scrutiny of written and spoken data and the outcomes of change from above and below within each register. The type of innovation and its trajectory may affect the nature of the emergent variable grammar.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , October 2015 , pp. 255 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aarts, Flor. (1993). Who, whom, that and Ø in two corpora of spoken English. English Today 9:19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. (2006). Case syncretism and word order change. In Kemenade, A. V. & Los, B. (eds.), The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell. 201–223.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengst. (1982). The genitive vs. the of-construction. A study of syntactic variation in 17th Century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language 49:765–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Nigel, & Mackenzie, Ian E. (2013). Standardization, ideology and linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ball, Catherine. (1996). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8:227–258.CrossRefGoogle 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
Beddor, Patrice S. (2009). A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85:407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddor, Patrice S. (2012). Perception, grammars and sound change. In Solé, M.-J. & Recasens, D. (eds.), The intitiation of sound change: Perception, production and social factors. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. (1995). Dimensions of regiser variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, & Finegan, Edward. (1997). Diachronis relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société néophilologique. 253–275.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz, & Scott, Alan. (2013). Expression of possession in English: The significance of the right edge. In Börjars, K., Denison, D., & Scott, A. (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possessio. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, & Baayen, R. Harald. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Krämer, I., & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. 69–94.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, & Ford, Marilyn. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86:168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, & Hay, Jennifer. (2008). Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118:245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1975). Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis 1:75–109.Google Scholar
Cofer, Timothy. (1975). Performance constraints on relative pronoun deletion. Linguistics 157:13–32.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. (1995). The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 33:35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curme, George O. (1931). A grammar of the English Language, III, Syntax. Boston: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. (2014). Functional partitioning and possible limits on variability: A view of adjective comparison from the vernacular. Journal of English Linguistics 42:218–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra, & Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2010). Prestige, accommodation and the legacy of relative who. Language in Society 39:389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. (2010). A discourse based account of the Oled English double object alternation. Sprachwissenschaft 35:337–368.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. (1986). English contact clauses revisited: A diachronic approach. Folia Linguistica Historica 7:107–120.Google Scholar
Denison, David. (1998). Syntax. In Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, 1776–present day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 92–329.Google Scholar
Düringer, Hermann. (1923). Die Analyse im Formenbau des englischen Nomens. In Horn, W. (ed.), Beiträge zur Erforschung der Sprache und Kultur Englands und Nordamerikas. Giessen: Im Verlag des Englischen Seminars der Universitet Giessen. 1–32.Google Scholar
Faiss, Klaus. (1977). Aspekte der Englischen Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, & wan der Wurf, Wim (2006). Syntax. In Hogg, R. & Denison, D. (eds.), A history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 109–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Charles Carpenter, & Pike, K. (1949). Coexistent phonemic systems. Language 25:29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garret, Andrew, & Johnson, Keith. (2013). Phonetic bias in soudn change. In Yu, A. (ed.), Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 51–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. (2014). Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Díaz, Victorina. (2006). The origin of English periphrastic comparatives. English Studies 87:707–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. (2014). Variation in English genitives across modality and genre. English Language and Linguistics 18:471–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (2002). Evidence in linguistics: Three approaches to genitives in English. In Brend, R. M., Sullivan, W. J., & Lommel, A. R. (eds.), LACUS Forum XXVIII: What constitutes evidence in linguistics. Fullerton: LACUS. 17–31.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott, & Bresnan, Joan. (2009). Spatiotemporal variation in the dative alternation: A study of four corpora of British and American English. Paper presented at the Third International Conference Grammar and Corpora, Mannheim, September 22–24.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1988). Advanced VARBRUL analysis. In Ferrara, K., Brown, B., Walters, K., & Baugh, J. (eds.), Linguistic change and contact. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin. 124–136.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., & Bayley, Robert. (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70:148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C., & Campbell, Lyle. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Kuteva, Tania. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. (2010). Language contact: Reconsideration and reassessment. In Hickey, R. (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. (2008). The comparative: Language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics 12:395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11:437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Bohmann, Axel. (2014). Which-hunting and the standard English relative clause. International Society for the Linguistics of English 3 [ISLE]. Zurich, August 24–27.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Bohmann, Axel. (forthcoming). Which-hunting and the standard English relative clause. Language 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney (1971). The sentence in written English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard (ed.). (2010). The Anglo-Norman language and its contexts. York: York Medieval Press/Boydell Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget. (2012). Cross-register language variation and change in Canadian English. PhD dissertation. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget, & Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2014). On the genitive's trail: Data and method from a sociolinguistic perspective. English Language and Linguistics 18:305–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Jones, M. C. & Esch, E. (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. (1972). An introduction to Middle English. London: Holt, Rinehard & Winston Inc.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., & Janda, Brian D. (2003). On language, change, and language change—or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, B. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Maldon: Blackwell Publishers. 3–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. (1993). The genitive versus the of-construction in newspaper language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kautzsch, Alexander. (2002). The historical evolution of earlier African American English: An empirical comparison of early sources. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, James. (2013). The role of probabilistic enhancement in phonologization. In Yu, A. C. L. (ed.), Origin of sound change: Approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. (1996a). “The best and most excelletest way”: The rivalling forms of adjective comparison in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Svartvik, J. (ed.), Words: Proceedings of an international symposium. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. 123–144.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. (1996b). Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, & Romaine, Suzanne. (1997). Competing forms of adjective comprison in Modern English: What could be more quicker and easier and more effective? In Nevalainen, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rssanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 329–352.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, & Romaine, Suzanne. (2000). Adjective comparison and standardisation processes in American and British English from 1620 to the present. In Wright, L. (ed.), The development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja, & Romaine, Suzanne. (2006). Ajdective comparison in nineteenth-century English. In Kytö, M., Rydén, M., & Smitterbeg, E. (eds.), Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19:273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale 23:30–87.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1971). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1:97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In J., Baugh & J., Sherzer (eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 28–54.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (2007). Transmission and diffusion. Language 83:344–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (2010). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. (1987). The shape of English: Structure and history. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, & Culpeper, Jonathan. (1997). The comparison of adjectives in recent British English. In Kytö, M., Rydén, M., & Smitterberg, E. (eds.), Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 194–214.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, & Smith, Nicholas. (2009). Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levey, Stephen. (2006). Visiting London relatives. English World-Wide 27:45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, Hans. (1998). The comparison of English disyllabic adjectives in /-y/ and /-ly/ in Present-day British and American English. In Lindquist, H., Klintborg, S., Levin, M., & Estling, M. (eds.), The major varieties of English: Papers from MAVEN 97. Växjö: Acta Wexionensia. 205–212.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, Hans. (2000). ‘Livelier /or/ more lively?’ Syntactic and contextual factors influencing the comparison of disyllabic adjectives. In Kirk, J. M. (ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. (1997). The s-genitive and the of-construction in different types of English texts. In Fries, U., Müller, V., & Schneider, P. (eds.), From AElfric to the New York Times: Studies in English corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. (2006a). Inflected genitives are spreading in present-day English but not necessarily to inanimate nouns. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. (2006b). Twentieth-century English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. (2002). The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Lighfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Hand Heinrich. (1967). The lag of relative who in the nominative. Neophilologus 51:277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James. (1992). Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Milroy, James. (2003). On the role of the speaker in language change. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 143–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James, & Milroy, Lesley. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. (1985). Old English syntax. Vols. 1, 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. (2003). Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 252–304.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. (2009). More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between syntehtic and anlytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S., & Richard, L. L. D. (1872). Historical outlines of English accidence. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko. (2013). Driving forces in English language contact linguistics. In Schreier, D. & Hundt, M. (eds.), English as a contact language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 204–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munske, Horst Haider. (1982). Die Rolle des Lateins als Superstratum im Deutschen und in andersen germanischen Sprachen. In Sture, U. (ed.), Die Leistung der Strategforschung in der Kreolistik: Typologische Aspekte der Sprachkontakte. Akten des 5. Symposiums über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim, 1982. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. (1960). A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. (2002). The rise of relative who in early Modern English. In Poussa, P. (ed.), Relativisation on the North Sea littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa. 109–121.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, C. (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. London: Longman. 237–278.Google Scholar
Pound, Louise. (1901). The comparison of adjectives in the 15th and 16th centuries. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. (1926). A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38:97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffry, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rantavaara, Irma. (1962). On the development of the periphrastic dative in Late Middle English prose. Neuephilologische Mitteilungen 63:175–203Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. (1984). The choice of relative pronouns in 17th century American English. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1980). The relative clause marker in Scots English: Diffusion, complexity and style as dimensions of syntactic change. Language in Society 9:221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1982a). Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (ed.). (1982b). Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2002). Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2003). Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81:613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2006). Descriptive genitives in English: A case study on constructional gradience. English Language and Linguistics 10:77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. (2008). Animacy and grammatical variation: Findings from the English genitive variation. Lingua 118:151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette, & Vezzosi, Letizia. (2000). Genitive constructions in Early Modern English: New evidence from a corpus analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. (1983). The emergence of who as a relativizer. Studia Linguistica 37:126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. (2013). Longitudinal studies. In Bayley, R. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. (2001). Why worser is better: The double comparative in 16th- to 17th-century English. Language Variation and Change 13:193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Mary, & Harrington, Jonathan. (2014). The individual and the actuation of sound change. Loquens 1. doi:10.3989/loquens.2014.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. (1970). A history of English. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. (1995). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2006). Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist soicolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Hinrichs, Lars. (2008). Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English. In Nevalainen, T., Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P., & Korhonen, M. (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2003–2006). Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Research Grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). #410-2003-0005.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2007–2010). Directions of change in Canadian English. Research grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). #410-070-048.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2010–2013). Transmission and diffusion in Canadian English. Research grant. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (SSHRCC). #410-101-129.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2014). A comparative sociolinguistic analysis of the dative alternation. In Torres-Cacoullos, R., Dion, N., & Lapierre, A. (eds.), Linguistic variation: Confronting fact and theory. London: Routledge. 297–318.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Jarmasz, Lidia-Gabriela. (2008). Variation and change in the English genitive: A sociolinguistic perspective. Linguistic Society of America. Chicago, January 4.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., Smith, Jennifer, & Lawrence, Helen. (2005). No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17:75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, ten Bosch, Louis, Boves, Lou, Cranen, Bert, & van Halteren, Hans. (2013). Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and memory-based learning to study the dative. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9:227–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Russel. (1931). Syntacticial processes involved in the development of the adnominal periphrastic genitive in the English language. PhD dissertation. University of Michigan. Available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/78568. Accessed January 31, 2014.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. (1995). The iconicity of “dative shift” in English: Considerations from information flow in discourse. In Landsberg, M. E. (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. (1995). The man ø I love: An analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English. In Melchers, G. & Warren, B. (eds.), Studies in Anglistics. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. 201–215.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. (1997). Relatively speaking: Relative marker usage in the British National Corpus. In Nevalainen, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. 465–481.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel, & Harvie, Dawn. (2000). It's all relative: Relativization strategies in early African American English. In Poplack, S. (ed.), The English history of African American English. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 198–230.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel, & Rey, Michel. (1997). Relativization strategies in Earlier African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 9:219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (1972). A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structures. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (1982). From propositional to textual to expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (1992). Syntax. In Hogg, R. M. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 1: The beginning to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 168–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola, & Stein, Achim. (forthcoming). Contact-induced changes in the argument structure of Middle English verbs on the model of Old French. In Grossman, E., Serzants, I., & Witzlack-Makarevich, A. (eds.), Special issue on valency and transitivity in contact, Journal of Language Contact.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30:382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joseph. (1898–1905). The English dialect grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar