Part of
Explorations in English Historical Syntax
Edited by Hubert Cuyckens, Hendrik De Smet, Liesbet Heyvaert and Charlotte Maekelberghe
[Studies in Language Companion Series 198] 2018
► pp. 77104
References (47)
Bibovič, Ljiljana
1976On the notion of body part instrument. Folia Linguistica 9: 311–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2011Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59: 387–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & De Clerck, Bernard
2011Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1986A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1927A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part III: Syntax, Vol. 2. London: George Allen & Unwin and Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Reprinted 1961 and 1965 by Dickens & Co., Northampton.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Gustav
1955Direct transitivation. English Studies 36:15–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1957Recent American influence on standard English: The syntactical sphere. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 5: 29–42.Google Scholar
1959Zur transitiven und intransitiven Verwendung des englischen Verbums. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 7: 342–399.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker
2007Understanding English-German Contrasts. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Legenhausen, Lienhard
1988Prototypical lexical causatives and transitional relations to non-causatives. In Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th Birthday, Dietrich Nehls (ed.), 131–146. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1983Transparent versus functional encoding of grammatical relations: A parameter for syntactic change and typology. Linguistische Berichte 86: 1–13.Google Scholar
1984Verbs and objects in semantic agreement: Minor differences between English and German that might suggest a major one. Journal of Semantics 3: 305–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter
1974Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. Bielefeld: Cornelsen, Velhagen & Klasing.Google Scholar
1992Bemerkungen zu infiniten Konstruktionen im Englischen und Deutschen. In New departures in contrastive linguistics/Neue Ansätze in der Kontrastiven Linguistik, Vol. I, Christian Mair & Manfred Markus (eds), 187–207. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
1995bOn the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76: 367–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 205–249. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000, Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Dieter Kastovsky, Nikolaus Ritt & Herbert Schendl (eds), 143–166. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2009aNominal complements. In One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds), 194–211. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009bGrammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Current Issues in Late Modern English, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade & Wim van der Wurff (eds), 300–329. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2014On the changing status of that-clauses. In Late Modern English Syntax, Marianne Hundt (ed.), 155–181. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Formal asymmetries between active and passive clauses in Modern English: The avoidance of preposition stranding with verbs featuring omissible prepositions. Anglia 135. 700–744.
Rudanko, Juhani
2015Linking Form and Meaning: Studies on Selected Control Patterns in Recent English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus
1963An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part one: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe
2006Die Große Komplementverschiebung. Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Yañez-Bouza, Nuria
2014Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

Electronic sources

BNC = British National Corpus
1995Version 1.0. BNC Consortium/Oxford University Computing Services. (100,000,000 words)Google Scholar
EAF = Early American Fiction
2000Chadwyck-Healey. (34,634,660 words)Google Scholar
ECF = Eighteenth-Century Fiction
1996Chadwyck-Healey. (9,702,696 words)Google Scholar
EEPF = Early English Prose Fiction
1997–2000Chadwyck-Healey. In association with the Salzburg Centre for Research on the English Novel SCREEN. (9,562,865 words)Google Scholar
EPD = English Prose Drama
1996–1997Chadwyck-Healey. (26,454,639 words)Google Scholar
ETC = Early Twentieth Century Corpus
a selection of British and American writings by authors born between 1870 and 1894. Source: Project Gutenberg. Compiled in the Research Project “Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English”, University of Paderborn. (16,351,681 words)
ETC/B = British writings in the ETC
4,801,408 words)
LNC = Late-Nineteenth-Century Corpus
a selection of British and American writings (complementary to the EAF and NCF) by authors born between 1830 and 1869. Source: Project Gutenberg. Compiled in the Research Project “Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English”, University of Paderborn.
LNC/B = British writings in the LNC
20,817,802 words)
MNC = Mid-Nineteenth-Century Corpus
a selection of British and American writings (complementary to the EAF and the NCF) by authors born between 1803 and 1829. Source: Project Gutenberg. Compiled in the Research Project “Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English”, University of Paderborn.
MNC/B = British writings in the MNC
10,082,876 words)
NCF = Nineteenth-Century Fiction
1999–2000Chadwyck-Healey. (37,589,837 words)Google Scholar
NCF1 = First part of the NCF containing only those authors born in the eighteenth century
(*1728–*1799).Google Scholar
NCF2 = Second part of the NCF containing only those authors born in the nineteenth century
(*1800–*1869).Google Scholar
OED = The Oxford English Dictionary
, 2nd edn on CD-ROM 1992 (Version 1.10). Edited by John A. Simpson & Edmund S. C. Weiner. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
t90, t92, t94 = The Times & The Sunday Times
on CD-ROM 1990, 1992, 1994Chadwyck-Healey/ProQuest. (119,476,791 words)Google Scholar
wridom1 = fictional component of the BNC
18,863,529 words)
Cited by (2)

Cited by 2 other publications

Bouso, Tamara
2020. The growth of the transitivising Reaction Object Construction. Constructions and Frames 12:2  pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Rohdenburg, Günter
2019. Further explorations in the grammar of intensifier marking in Modern English. In Developments in English Historical Morpho-Syntax [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 346],  pp. 269 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.