Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English

English Language and Linguistics

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 1-15

  Trudgill, Peter ^a,d   Nevalainen, Terttu ^b   Wischer, Ilse ^c  

^a Fribourg University

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248739421     PISSN: 13606743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1360674302001016     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Algeo, J. (1995). Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Aarts, B. & C. F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Barber, C. (1997). Early modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 203-17.
3. Bibcr, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.
4. Brinton, L. & M. Akimoto (eds.) (1999). Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
5. Claridge, Claudia (2000). Multi-word verbs in Early Modern EngIish: a corpus based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
6. Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax. London: Longman.
7. Dietrich, G. (1949). Die Syntax der 'Do'-Umschreibung bei 'have', 'be', 'ought' und 'used (to)', auf sprachgeschichtlicher Grundlage dargestellt. Brunswick: Georg Westermann Verlag.
8. Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary DO: the establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
9. Garrett, A. (1998). On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 2: 283-99.
10. Hiltunen, R. (1999). Verbal phrases and phrasa1 verbs in Early Modern English. In Brinton & Akimoto, 33-165.
11. Hudson, R. (1997). The rise of auxiliary do: verb-non-raising or category-strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 41-72.
12. Matsumoto, M. (1999). Composite predicates in Middle English. In Brinton & Akimoto, 59-96.
13. Nurmi, A. (1999). A social history of periphrastic DO. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 56.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
14. Ogura, M. (1994). The development of periphrastic DO in English. Diachronica 10: 51-85.
15. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1985). A comprehenshe grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
16. Stein, G. & R. Quirk (1991). On having a Iook in a corpus. In Aijmer, K. & B. Altenberg (eds). English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 197-203.
17. Strevens, P. (1972). British and American English. London: Macmillan.
18. Trudgill, P. (2001). Linguistic and social typology. In Chambers, J. K., N. Schilling-Estes & P. Trudgill (eds.), Handbook of linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell, 707-28
19. Trudgill, P. & J. Hannah (1994). International English: a guide to varieties of Standard English, 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
20. Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you have a drink when you can't have an eat? Language 58: 753-99.
21. Wischer, I. (forthcoming). What makes a syntactic change stop? On the decline of periphrastic DO in Early Modern English affirmative declarative sentences.