Review published In:
Understanding Historical (Im)Politeness
Edited by Marcel Bax and Dániel Z. Kádár
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12:1/2] 2011
► pp. 283293
References (15)
References
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 253–276.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina and Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In: Gerlof Bouma, Irene Kraemer and Joost Zwarts (eds.). Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 69–94.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
González-Álvarez, Dolores, and Javier Pérez-Guerra. 1998. Texting the written evidence: On register analysis in Late Middle English and Early Modern English. Text 18.3, 321–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11.3, 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 2000. The origins of the Northern Subject Rule: A case of early contact? In: Hildegard L. C. Tristram (ed.). Celtic Englishes II1. Heidelberg: Winter, 329–346.Google Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005. Variable Grammars: Verbal Agreement in Northern Dialects of English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subject, definiteness, and information-status. In: Sandra A. Thompson and William C. Mann (eds.). Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 295–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena. Forthcoming. Givenness and word order: A study of long passives in Modern and Present-Day English. In: María José López-Couso, Bettelou Los and Anneli Meurman-Solin (eds.). Information Structure and Syntactic Change (Oxford Studies in the History of English 1.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2002. Historical discourse analysis: Scientific language and changing thought-styles. In: Teresa Fanego, Belén Méndez-Naya and Elena Seoane (eds.). Sounds, Words, Texts and Change. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 224.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 201–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toole, Janine. 1996. The effect of genre on referential choice. In: Thorstein Fretheim and Jeanette K. Gundel (eds.). Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 263–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In: Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 29–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard, and Peter Trudgill (eds.). 2002. Alternative Histories of English. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar