Treebanks in Historical Syntax

Literature Cited

1. Allen C. 2010. Substantival adjectives in the history of English and the nature of syntactic change. Grammatical Change: Theory and Description R Hendery, J Hendriks 9–25 Canberra, Aust.: Pac. Linguist.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bech K, Gunn Eide K 2014. Information Structure and Syntactic Change in Germanic and Romance Amsterdam: John Benjamins
   [Google Scholar]
3. Booth H, Schätzle C, Börjars K, Butt M 2017. Dative subjects and the rise of positional licensing in Icelandic. Proceedings of the LFG’17 Conference, University of Konstanz M Butt, TH King 104–24 Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Breitbarth A, Walkden G, Watts S 2019. Introduction to the corpus. Corpus of Low Historical German http://www.chlg.ac.uk/corpus.html
   [Google Scholar]
5. Buchholz S, Marsi E. 2006. CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning149–64 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Cichosz A. 2018. Parenthetical reporting clauses in the history of English: the development of quotative inversion. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 21:183–214
   [Google Scholar]
7. Danckaert L. 2017a. The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
8. Danckaert L. 2017b. The loss of Latin OV: steps toward an analysis. Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description E Aboh, E Haeberli, GS Puskás, M Schönenberger 401–46 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
   [Google Scholar]
9. Danckaert L. 2017c. Subject placement in the history of Latin. Catalan J. Linguist. 16:125–61
   [Google Scholar]
10. de Haas N, van Kemenade A 2014. The origin of the Northern Subject Rule: subject positions and verbal morphosyntax in older English. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 19:49–81
    [Google Scholar]
11. Ecay A. 2015a. A multi-step analysis of the evolution of English do-support PhD Thesis, Univ Pa., Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
12. Ecay A. 2015b. The Penn-York Computer-annotated Corpus of a Large amount of English based on the TCP (PYCCLE-TCP) https://github.com/uoy-linguistics/pyccle
    [Google Scholar]
13. Eckhoff H, Bech K, Bouma G, Eide K, Haug D et al. 2018a. The PROIEL treebank family: a standard for early attestations of Indo-European languages. Lang. Resour. Eval. 52:29–65
    [Google Scholar]
14. Eckhoff H, Luraghi S, Passarotti M 2018b. Introduction: the added value of diachronic treebanks for historical linguistics. Diachronica 35:3297–309
    [Google Scholar]
15. Eitler T. 2006. Some sociolectal, dialectal and communicative aspects of word order variation in Late Middle English PhD Thesis, Eötvös Loránd Univ. Budapest, Hung:.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Eitler T, Westergaard M. 2014. Word order variation in late Middle English. See Bech & Gunn Eide 2014 203–31
17. Ellegård A. 1953. The Auxiliary Do: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English Stockholm: Almqvist Wiksell
    [Google Scholar]
18. Fischer S. 2014. Revisiting stylistic fronting in Old Spanish. Left Sentence Peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, Variationist and Comparative Perspectives A Dufter, ÁSO de Toledo y Huerta 53–76 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
19. Galves C, Gibrail A. 2018. Subject inversion in transitive sentences from Classical to Modern European Portuguese: a corpus-based study. Word Order Change AM Martins, A Cardoso 163–78 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
20. Galves C, Paixão de Sousa MC 2010. The loss of verb-second in the history of Portuguese: subject position, clitic placement and prosody Paper presented at the Diachronic Generative Syntax conference Cambridge, UK: July 14–16
    [Google Scholar]
21. Galves C, Paixão de Sousa MC 2017. The change in the position of the verb in the history of Portuguese: subject realization, clitic placement, and prosody. Language 93:e152–80
    [Google Scholar]
22. Galves C, Sandalo F, de Sena T, Veronesi L 2017. Annotating a polysynthetic language: from Portuguese to Kadiwéu. Cad. Estud. Linguíst. 59:631–48
    [Google Scholar]
23. Haeberli E, Pintzuk S. 2012. Revisiting verb (projection) raising in Old English. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes D Jonas, J Whitman, A Garrett 219–38 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
24. Haug D, Jøhndal M, Eckhoff H, Welo E, Hertzenberg MJB, Müth A 2009. Computational and linguistic issues in designing a syntactically annotated parallel corpus of Indo-European languages. TAL 50:17–45
    [Google Scholar]
25. Hou L, Smith D. 2018. Modeling the decline in English passivization. Proc. Soc. Comput. Linguist. 1:34–43
    [Google Scholar]
26. Ingason AK. 2016. PaCQL: a new type of treebank search for the digital humanities. Ital. J. Comput. Linguist. 2:51–66
    [Google Scholar]
27. Jøhndal M. 2016. Building and using online corpora for (historical) linguistic research Paper presented at the Computational Linguistics and the Dating of Early Irish Texts conference, Maynooth Univ. Maynooth, Irel: Dec. 15
    [Google Scholar]
28. Kester E-P. 1996. Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP. J. Linguist. 32:57–78
    [Google Scholar]
29. Komen E. 2012. Coreferenced corpora for information structure research. Stud. Var. Contacts Change Engl. 10: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/10/komen
    [Google Scholar]
30. Kroch AS. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Lang. Var. Change 1:199–244
    [Google Scholar]
31. Kroch AS, Santorini B. 2016. Evidence for OV word order in older French, Icelandic and Yiddish Paper presented at the Formal Ways of Analyzing Variation (FWAV) conference, City University of New York New York: May 18
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kroch AS, Taylor A. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation and language contact. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change A van Kemenade, N Vincent 297–395 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kroch AS, Taylor A. 2000. Verb-object order in early Middle English. Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms S Pintzuk, G Tsoulas, A Warner 132–63 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kroch AS, Taylor A, Ringe D 2000. The Middle English verb-second constraint: a case study in language contact and language change. Textual Parameters in Older Languages S Herring, P van Reenan, L Schösler 353–91 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
35. Labov W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
36. Li M. 2018. Chinese Parsed Historical Corpus (ChiPaHC) Univ. Newcastle Newcastle, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
37. Light C. 2012. The syntax and pragmatics of fronting in Germanic PhD Thesis, Univ. Pa Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
38. Light C, Wallenberg J. 2015. The expression of impersonals in Middle English. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 19:227–45
    [Google Scholar]
39. Manning C, Surdeanu M, Bauer J, Finkel J, Bethard S, McClosky D 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations55–60 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Marcus M, Santorini B, Marcinkiewicz MA 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank CIS Tech. Rep., Univ. Pa Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
41. Pintzuk S. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and Change in Old English Word Order New York: Garland
    [Google Scholar]
42. Pintzuk S, Taylor A. 2006. The loss of OV order in the history of English. The Handbook of the History of English A van Kemenade, B Los 249–78 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
43. Rissanen M. 2000. The world of English historical corpora: from Caedmon to the computer age. J. Engl. Linguist. 28:7–20
    [Google Scholar]
44. Roehrs D, Sapp C. 2018. Complex quantifiers with genitive and concord in Old English and beyond. J. Comp. Ger. Linguist. 21:381–419
    [Google Scholar]
45. Santorini B. 1992. The generalization of the verb-second constraint in the history of Yiddish PhD Thesis, Univ. Pa Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
46. Santorini B. 1993. The rate of phrase structure change in the history of Yiddish. Lang. Var. Change 5:257–83
    [Google Scholar]
47. Schätzle C. 2018. Dative subjects: historical change visualized PhD Thesis, Univ. Konstanz Konstanz, Ger:.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Scrivner OB. 2015. A probabilistic approach in historical linguistics word order change in infinitival clauses: from Latin to Old French PhD Thesis, Indiana Univ. Bloomington:
    [Google Scholar]
49. Sinclair J. 2005. Corpus and text: basic principles. Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice M Wynne 1–16 Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books
    [Google Scholar]
50. Taylor A. 1990. Clitics and configurationality in ancient Greek PhD Thesis, Univ. Pa Philadelphia:
    [Google Scholar]
51. Taylor A. 2007. The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora J Beal, K Corrigan, H Moisl 196–227 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
52. Taylor A, Marcus M, Santorini B 2003. The Penn Treebank: an overview. Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora A Abeille 5–22 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
53. Taylor A, Pintzuk S. 2017. Split coordination in Early English. Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in Honour of Ans van Kemenade P de Haan, B Los 155–83 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
54. Taylor A, Pintzuk S. 2018. Split coordination in English: why we need parsed corpora. Diachronica 35:310–37
    [Google Scholar]
55. Truswell R. 2016. Diachronic syntax with and without parsed corpora Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics in Scotland (CliS) conference, Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK: Dec. 2
    [Google Scholar]
56. Walkden G. 2014. Object position and heavy NP shift in Old Saxon and beyond. See Bech & Gunn Eide 2014 313–40
57. Walkden G. 2016. The HeliPaD: a parsed corpus of Old Saxon. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 21:559–71
    [Google Scholar]
58. Wallenberg J. 2016. Extraposition is disappearing. Language 92:e237–56
    [Google Scholar]
59. Warner A. 2005. Why DO dove: evidence for register variation in Early Modern English negatives. Lang. Var. Change 17:257–80
    [Google Scholar]
60. Yáñez-Bouza N, Denison D. 2015. Which comes first in the double object construction. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 19:247–68
    [Google Scholar]
61. Zaenen A, Maling J. 1984. Unaccusative, passive, and quirky case. Proceedings of the Third West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics M Wescoat 317–29 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
62. Zimmermann R. 2017. Formal and quantitative approaches to the study of syntactic change: three case studies from the history of English PhD Thesis, Univ Geneva, Geneva:
    [Google Scholar]