Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-28

  Allen, Cynthia L ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244348895     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1360674303211023     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, MIT
2. Allen, C. L. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press
3. Allen, C. L. (1997). The origins of the 'group genitive' in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 111-31
4. Allen, C. L. (2002). Case and Middle English genitive noun phrases. In Lightfoot, D. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 57-80
5. Altenberg, B. (1982). The genitive v. the of construction: a study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Lund: Gleerup
6. Anderson, J. M. (1999). Case. In Brown, K. & J. Miller (eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories. Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier. 58-65
7. Atanasov, P. (1990). Le Mégléno-roumain de nos jours. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag
8. Bately, J. (ed.) (1986). The Anglo-Saxon chronicle: a collaborative edition. Vol. 3: MS A. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer
9. Blake, B. J. (1994). Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10. Brook, S. (1965). The language of the Book of Common Prayer. London: André Deutsch Limited
11. Buehler, P. G. (1974). The Middle English Genesis and Exodus: a running commentary on the text of the poem. The Hague: Mouton
12. Capidan, T. (1925). Meglenoromanil, isoria si griul lor. Bucharest
13. Carstairs, A. (1987). Diachronic evidence and the affix-clitic distinction. In Ramat, A. G., O. Carruba & G. Bernini (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 151-62
14. Cobbett, W. (1983 [1823]). A grammar of the English language: the 1818 New York first edition with passages added in 1819, 1820 and 1823. Amsterdam: Rodopi
15. Delsing, L.-O. (1998). Possession in Germanic. In Alexiadou, A. & C. Wilder (eds.), Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 87-108
16. Donaldson, B. C. (1993). A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter
17. Ekwall, E. (1913). The s-less genitive in Early Modern English. In Erdman, A. (ed.), Minnesskrift af Axel Erdmann. Uppsala and Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksells. 53-67
18. Ekwall, E. (1943). Studies on the genitives of groups in English. Lund: Gleerup
19. Fischer, O. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2: 1066-1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207-408
20. Furnivall, F. J. (1865). Some fresh evidence from the second text of Layamon of the possessives in es and his. Transactions of the Philological Society. 75-94
21. Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and diachronic morphology: an archaeologist's fieldtrip. In Papers from the 7th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16-18, 1971. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 394-415
22. Janda, R. (1980). On the decline of declensional systems: the loss of OE nominal case and the ME reanalysis of -es as his. In Traugott, E. C., R. Labrum & S. Shepard (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 243-52
23. Janda, R. D. (1981). A case of liberation from morphology into syntax: the fate of the English genitive-marker -(e)s. In Johns, B. B. & D. R. Strong (eds.), Syntactic change. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan. 60-114
24. Janda, R. D. (2001). Beyond 'pathways' and 'unidirectionality': on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 265-340
25. Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language: with special reference to English. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co
26. Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles. Vol. 6: Morphology. London: Allen and Unwin
27. Kemenade, A. van (1987). Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris
28. Kroch, A. (1997). Comments on 'Syntax Shindig' papers. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 133-47
29. Kurath, H. & S. K. (eds.) (1956). Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
30. Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM Europa
31. Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford and Maiden, MA: Blackwell
32. Los, B. (1999). Infinitival complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: Thesus
33. MacIntosh, A., M. Samuels, M. Benskin, M. Laing & K. Williamson (1986). A linguistic atlas of late medieval English. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press
34. Murray, L. (1979 [1795]). English grammar, adapted to the different classes of learners. London: Scolar Press
35. Mustanoja, T. (1960). A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique
36. Nakamura, W. (1997). A constraint-based typology of case systems. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of New York at Buffalo
37. Norde, M. (1997). The history of the genitive in Swedish: a case study in degrammaticalization. Amsterdam: Vakgroep Skandinavisch taal- en letterkunde
38. Norde, M. (2001). Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. Language Sciences 23: 231-64
39. Phillipps, K. C. (1978). The language of Thackeray. London: André Deutsch
40. Plank, F. (1980). Encoding grammatical relations: acceptable and unacceptable non-distinctness. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical morphology. The Hague: Mouton. 289-325
41. Plank, F. (1985). The interpretation and development of form alternations conditioned across word boundaries. The case of wife's, wives, and wives'. In Eaton, R., O. Fischer, W. Koopman & F. v. d. Leek (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 205-33
42. Plank, F. (1992). From cases to adpositions. In Pantaleo, N. (ed.), Aspects of English diachronic linguistics: papers read at the second National Conference on the History of English, Naples, 28-29, April 1989. Fasano: Schena. 19-61
43. Sadock, J. M. (1991). Autolexical syntax. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press
44. Seppänen, A. (1997). The genitive and the category of case in the history of English. In Hickey, R. & S. Puppel (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 193-214
45. Tabor, W. & E. C. Traugott (1998). Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Ramat, A. G. & P. J. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalisation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 229-72
46. Waldron, R. (1991). Dialect aspects of manuscripts of Trevisa's translation of the Polychronicon. In Riddy, F. (ed.), Regionalism in late medieval manuscripts and texts: essays celebrating the publication of 'A linguistic atlas of late mediaeval English'. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. 64-87
47. Weerman, F. & P. de Wit (1999). The decline of the genitive in Dutch. Linguistics 37: 1155-92
48. Wit, P. de (1997). Genitive case and genitive constructions. Utrecht: LEd
49. Wright, J. (1905). The English dialect grammar. Oxford and London: Henry Frowde
50. Wyld, H. C. (1953 [1920]). A history of modern colloquial English. London: Fisher Unwin
51. Zwicky, A. M. (1987). Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23: 133-48
52. Zwicky, A. M. & G. K. Pullum (1983). Cliticization vs inflection: English n't. Language 59: 502-13