Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change

Diachronica

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 382-419

  Wolk, Christoph ^a   Bresnan, Joan ^b   Rosenbach, Anette ^c   Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Tanagra Wines ^*  (South Africa)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Animacy; Corpus linguistics; Cross constructional analysis; Dative alternation; Genitive alternation; Late Modern English; Probabilistic grammar

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887486203     PISSN: 01764225     EISSN: 15699714     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 435-483.
2. Allen, Cynthia L. 2009. Case syncretism and word order change. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 201-223. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
3. Al Tenberg, Bengt. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.
4. Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco & Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76 (1). 28-55.
5. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler & Ben Bolker. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0. 999 375-42.
6. Behaghel, Otto. 1909/1910. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110-142.
7. Biber, Douglas, Edward Finegan & Dwight Atkinson. 1994. archer and its challenges: Compiling and exploring a representative corpus of historical English regisTers. In Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie & PeTer Schneider (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the FourTeenth International Conference on English Language Research and Computerized Corpora, 1-13. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
8. Bock, J. Kathryn, Helga Loebell & Randal Morey. 1992. From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review 99. 150-171.
9. Bod, Rens, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.). 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77-96, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald R. Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69-94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
12. Bresnan, Joan, Shipra Dingare & Christopher D. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, 13-32.
13. Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86 (1). 186-213.
14. Bresnan, Joan & Jennifer Hay. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118 (2). 245-259.
15. Bresnan, Joan & Tatiana Nikitina. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, 161-184. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
16. Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Cueni, Anna. 2004. Predicting the outcome of the choice between the dative constructions of English. Ms., Stanford University.
18. Dahl, Lisa. 1971. The s-genitive with non-personal nouns in modern English journalistic style. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72. 140-172.
19. De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2010. A discourse based account of the Old English double object alternation. Sprachwissenschaft 35. 337-368.
20. Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25 (2). 108-127.
21. Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language vol. 2, 1066-1476, 207-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Fischer, Olga & Wim Van Der Wurff. 2006. Syntax. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 109-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Gahl, Susanne & Susan Marie Garnsey. 2006. Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities. Language 82 (2). 405-410.
24. Gahl, Susanne & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.). 2006. Special theme issue: Exemplar-based models in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 23 3).
25. Grafmiller, Jason. Forthcoming. Variation in English genitives across modality and genre. English Language and Linguistics.
26. Grafmiller, Jason & Stephanie Shih. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Talk given at the LSA 2011 Annual Meeting, 6-9 January 2011, Pittsburgh, PA.
27. Gries, Stefan Th. 2002. Evidence in linguistics: Three approaches to genitives in English. In Ruth M. Brend, William J. Sullivan & Arle R. Lommel (eds.), LACUS Forum XXVIII: What constitutes evidence in linguistics?, 17-31. Fullerton, CA: LACUS.
28. Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1. 1-27.
29. Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14 (3). 293-320.
30. Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpusbased perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1). 97-129.
31. Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Hinrichs, Lars & 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.
34. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Hundt, Marianne. 1997. Has BrE been catching up with AmE over the past thirty years? In Magnus Ljung (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English: Papers from the seventeenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, 135-151. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
36. Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8. 47-69.
37. Hundt, Marianne & Christian Mair. 1999. 'Agile' and 'uptight' genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4. 221-242.
38. Hundt, Marianne & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2012. Animacy in early New Zealand English. English World-Wide 33 (3). 241-263.
39. Jankowski, Bridget. 2009. Grammatical and register variation and change: A multi-corpora perspective on the English genitive. Paper presented at the American Association for Corpus Linguistics (AACL) 2009.
40. Jäger, Gerhard & Anette Rosenbach. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34 (2). 85-113.
41. Van Kemenade, Ans. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
42. Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 171-210. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
43. Koopman, Willem. 1990. Word order in Old English. AmsTerdam: University of AmsTerdam dissertation.
44. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. Adnominal possession. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 2, 960-970. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
45. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Adnominal possession in European languages: Form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55. 141-172.
46. Kreyer, Rolf. 2003. Genitive and of-construction in modern written English: Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2). 169-207.
47. Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Katherine Beals, Jeanette Denton, Robert Knippen, Lynette Melnar, Hisami Suzuki & Erica Zeinfeld (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 2, The parasession on variation in linguistic theory (CLS 30), 180-201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
48. Labov, William. 1966a. The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washington Linguistics Review 3. 4-22.
49. Labov, William. 1966b. The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
50. Labov, William. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17-92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden, Germany: Athenaion.
52. McDonald, Janet L., J. Kathryn Bock & Michael H. Kelly. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25. 188-230.
53. McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107-123. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54. Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press.
55. Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, vol. I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
56. Nevalainen, Terttu. 2003. Socio-historical linguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.
57. Pinheiro, José C. & Douglas M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
58. Potter, Simeon. 1969. Changing English. London: André Deutsch.
59. RDevelopment Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/.
60. Raab-Fischer, Roswitha. 1995. Löst der Genitiv die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützTe Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43 (2). 123-132.
61. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2005. The diffusion of subject you: A case study in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17. 55-73.
62. Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
63. Rosenbach, Anet Te. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the sgenitive and the of-genitive in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 379-412. Berlin: Mouton de GruyTer.
64. Rosenbach, Anette. 2007. Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11 (1). 143-189.
65. Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Animacy and grammatical variation - Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118 (2). 151-171.
66. Rosenbach, Anette & Letizia Vezzosi. 2000. Genitive constructions in Early Modern English: New evidence from a corpus analysis. In Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe & Ariel Shisha-Halevy (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time, 285-307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67. Sankoff, David & William Labov. 1979. On the use of variable rules. Language in Society 8. 189-222.
68. Seiler, Hans-Jakob. 1982. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.
69. Siewierska, Anna & Willem Hollmann. 2007. Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, 83-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
70. Stein, D. 1988. Psycholinguistic issues and determinants of syntactic change. Papiere zur Linguistik 39 (2). 31-48.
71. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
72. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. Typological parameTers of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change 21 (3). 1-35.
73. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The English genitive althernation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141-166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
74. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan Scott (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 59-88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
75. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Lars Hinrichs. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta & Minna Korhonen (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291-309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
76. Tagliamon Te, Sali. 2001. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Jack Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 729-763. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
77. Thomas, Russel. 1931. Syntactical processes involved in the development of the adnominal periphrastic genitive in the English language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan dissertation.
78. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Richard Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, The beginnings to 1066, 168-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
79. Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.
80. Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
81. Wissmann, Malte, Helge Toutenburg & Shalabh. 2007. Role of categorical variables in multicollinearity in the Linear Regression Model. Technical report 008, Department of Statistics, University of Munich.
82. Zaenen, Annie, Jean Carlette, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden (et al). 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Donna Byron & Bonnie Webber (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, July 2004, 118-125. East Strouddsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.