The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 207-232

  Sigley, Robert ^a  

^a VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644589734     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s1360674300000514     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aarts, F. (1993). Who, whom, that and Ø in two corpora of spoken English. English Today 35: 19-21.
2. Aarts, F. (1994). Relative who and whom: prescriptive rules and linguistic reality. American Speech 69: 71-9.
3. Adamson, D. (1992). Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech 67: 121-33.
4. Ball, C. N. (1996). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language variation and change 8: 227-58.
5. Bauer, L. (1993). Manual of information to accompany the Wellington corpus of written New Zealand English. Wellington: Department of Linguistics, Victoria University of Wellington.
6. Bauer, L. (1994). Watching English change. London: Longman.
7. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (1987). The use of relative markers in modern American English. In Denning et al. (eds.), 1987: 13-21.
9. Copperud, R. H. (1980). American usage and style: the consensus. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
10. de Haan, P. (1984). Problem-oriented tagging of English corpus data. In Aarts, J. & W. Meijs (eds.), Corpus linguistics: recent developments in the use of computer corpora in English language research. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 123-40.
11. de Haan, P. (1989). Postmodifying clauses in the English noun phrase. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
12. Dear, I. C. B. (1986). Oxford English: a guide to the language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Dekeyser, X. (1975). Number and case relations in 19th century British English. Amsterdam: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.
14. Denning, K., S. Inkelas, F. McNair-Knox, & J. Rickford (eds.) (1987). Variation in language: NWAVE-XV at Stanford. Stanford: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University.
15. Dupré, L. (1995). BUGS in writing: a guide to debugging your prose. Reading, MA; New York, etc: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
16. Fowler, H. W. (1926). A dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Gordon, I. (1980). A word in your ear. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
18. Greenbaum, S. & G. Nelson (1996). The International Corpus of English (ICE) project. World Englishes 15: 3-15.
19. Greenbaum, S. & J. Whitcut (1988). Longman guide to English usage. London: Longman.
20. Guy, G. R. & R. Bayley (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70: 148-62.
21. Holmes, J. (1995). The Wellington Corpus of Spoken New Zealand English: a progress report. New Zealand English Newsletter 9: 5-8.
22. Ivers, M. (1991). The Random House guide to good writing. New York: Ballantine.
23. Jacobsson, B. (1994). Non-restrictive relative that-clauses revisited. Studia Neophilologica 66: 181-95.
24. Johansson, C. (1995). The relativizers whose and of which in Present-day English: description and theory. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis; Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 90.
25. Kikai, A., M. Schleppegrell, & S. Tagliamonte (1987). The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies. In Denning et al. (eds.), 1987: 266-77.
26. Lowth, R. (1762). A short introduction to English grammar, with critical notes. Facsimile edition, 1967. Menston: Scolar Press.
27. McCawley, J. D. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English, vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Olofsson, A. (1981). Relative junctions in written American English. Goteburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis; Gothenburg Studies in English 50.
29. Peters, P. (1994). The Cambridge Australian English style guide. Cambridge; Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
30. Quirk, R. (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97-109.
31. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
32. Schmied, J. (1991). English relative constructions: corpus-linguistic analyses in British and Indian English. Postdoctoral thesis, University of Bayreuth, Germany.
33. Schmied, J. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative research approaches to English relative constructions. In Souter, C. & E. Atwell (eds.), Corpus-based computational linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 85-96.
34. Schneider, E. W. (1992a). Who(m)? Case-marking of wh-pronouns in written British and American English. In Leitner, G. (ed.), New directions in English language corpora: methodology, results, software developments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 231-45.
35. Schneider, E. W. (1992b). Constraints on the loss of case-marking of wh-pronouns. In Rissanen, M., O. Ihalainen, T. Nevalainen & I. Taavitsainen (eds.), History of Englishes: new methods and interpretations in historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 437-52.
36. Shnukal, A. (1981). There's a lot mightn't believe this ... variable subject relative pronoun absence in Australian English. In Sankoff, D. & H. Cedergren (eds.), Variation omnibus. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 321-8.
37. Sigley, R. J. (forthcoming). Text categories and where you can stick them: a crude formality index. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
38. Van den Eynden, N. (1993). Syntactic variation and unconscious linguistic change: a study of adjectival relative clauses in the dialect of Dorset. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, etc: Peter Lang.
39. Wallace, D. & J. Hughes (1995). Style book. Wellington, NZ: GP Publications.
40. Young, M. (1989). The technical writer's handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.