Review published In:
Vol. 1:2 (1984) ► pp.267271
Anderson, John M.
1979On Being without a Subject. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M. & F. C. van der Leek
1983 “The Demise of the Old English Impersonal Construction”. JL 19:2.337–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaaf, Willem van der
1904The Transition from the Impersonal to the Personal Construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1909–1949A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 71 vols. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W.
1979Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
1981a “Explaining Linguistic Change”. Explanation in Linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition ed. by Norbert R. Hornstein & David W. Lightfoot, 209–240. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1981b “A Reply to Some Critics”. Lingua 551.351–68. [In particular in response to the review article by O. C. M. Fischer & F. C. van der Leek, “Optimal vs Radical Re-Analysis: Mechanisms of syn-tactic change”, Lingua 551.301–349 (1981).]Google Scholar
McCawley, Noriko A.
1976 “From OE/ME ‘Impersonal’ to ‘Personal’ Con-structions: What is a ‘subjectless’ S?”. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax ed. by Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Sa-likoko S. Mufwene, 192–204. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Tripp, Raymond P., Jr
1968 “The Psychology of Impersonal Construct-ions”. Glossa 121.177–87.Google Scholar
Wahlén, Nils
1925The World of English Impersonalia. Part I: Imper-sonal expressions containing verbs of material import in the active voice. Goteborg: Elander.Google Scholar