The expression of pragmatic values by means of verbal morphology: A variationist study

Language Variation and Change

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 59-89

  Pollán, Celia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008536244     PISSN: 09543945     EISSN: 14698021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0954394501131030     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aarts, Flor. (1994). Relative who and whom: Prescriptive rules and linguistic reality. American Speech 69: 71-79.
2. Adamson, H. D. (1992). Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech 67: 123-133.
3. Adamson, H. D., & Regan, Vera M. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A prelimIn Ary study. Studies in Second Language A cquisition 13: 1-22.
4. American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Associated Press. (1992). Stylebook and Libel Manual (“Fully updated” ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Baker, Sheridan. (1962). The practical stylist. New York: Crowell.
7. Ball, Catherine N. (1992). A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXI, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
8. Beebe, Leslie M., & Zuengler, Jane. (1983). Accommodation theory: An explanation for style shifting in second language dialects. In Nessa Wolfson & Elliot Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 195-213.
9. Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun. (1987). The use of relative markers in Modern American English. In Keith M. Denning, Sharon Inkelas, Faye C. McNair-Knox, & John R. Rickford (Eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XVat Stanford. Stanford: Stanford University, Linguistics Department. 13-21.
10. Cedergren, Henrietta, & Sankoff, David. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50: 333-355.
11. Cheshire, Jenny. (1982). Variation in an English dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. The Chicago manual of style (14th ed.). (1993). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Crookes, Graham. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 367-383.
14. Fasold, Ralph. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech 66: 3-21.
15. Flanigan, Beverly Olson. (1995). Anaphora and relativization in child second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 331-351.
16. Guy, Gregory R., & Bayley, Robert. (1995). On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70: 148-162.
17. Jespersen, Otto. (1927). A Modern English grammar on historical principles, Part III. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung.
18. Kikai, Akio, Schleppegrell, Mary, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (1987). The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies. In Keith M. Denning, Sharon Inkelas, Faye C. McNair-Knox, & John R. Rickford (Eds.), Variation in language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. Stanford: Stanford University, Linguistics Department. 266-277.
19. Krashen, Stephen D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
20. Kroch, Anthony S., & Small, Cathy. (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In David Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 45-55.
21. Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
22. Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1975). A communicative grammar of English. London: Longman.
23. Malvar, Elisabete. (1995). Relative clauses in English: Analysis of which/that/O context. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIV, University of Pennsylvania.
24. Montgomery, Michael, & Bailey, Guy. (1991). In which: A new form in written English? American Speech 66: 147-163.
25. Pesetsky, David. (1982). Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nomIn Ative island condition. The Linguistic Review 1: 297-343.
26. Preston, Dennis. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
27. Preston, Dennis. (1991). Sorting out the variables in sociolinguistic theory. American Speech 66: 33-56.
28. Quirk, Randolph. (1957). Relative clauses in Educated Spoken English. English Studies 38: 97-109.
29. Quirk, Randolph. (1968). Essays on the English language, medieval and modern. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
31. Riley, Kathryn, & Parker, Frank. (1986). Anomalous prepositions in relative clauses. American Speech 61: 291-306.
32. Romaine, Suzanne. (1982). Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Romaine, Suzanne. (1984). The language of children and adolescents. New York: Blackwell.
34. Sankoff, Gillian. (1973). Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In Charles-James N. Bailey & Roger W. Shuy (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 44-66.
35. Sankoff, Gillian. (1974). A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. In Richard Bauman & Joel Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 18-49.
36. Schachter, Jacqueline. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning 27: 205-214.
37. Schremp, Mary Berni. (1995). Restrictive relative pronouns in Oklahoma. Paper presented at NWAVE-XXIV, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
38. Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-231.
39. Shaughnessy, MIn A. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
40. Walsh, Thomas, & Walsh, Natasha. (1989). Patterns of who/whom usage. American Speech 64: 284-286.
41. Wolfram, Walt. (1991). The linguistic variable: Fact and fantasy. American Speech 66: 22-32.