Tracing the origins and grammaticalization path of Irish English habitual do V: an analysis of the 1641 Depositions

References

1641 Depositions. Trinity College Dublin. https://1641.tcd.ie/ (accessed 1 January 2024).10.1017/9781805433446.003Search in Google Scholar

Aarts, Bas, María José López-Couso & Belén Méndez-Naya. 2012. Late Modern English: Syntax. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds.), English historical linguistics. An international handbook, 869–887. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Auwera, Johan van der. 1999. Periphrastic ‘do’: Typological prolegomena. In Guy A. J. Tops, Betty Devrient & Steven Geukens (eds.), Thinking English grammar. To honour Xavier Dekeyser, professor emeritus, 457–470. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.Search in Google Scholar

Bækken, Bjørg. 1998. Word order patterns in Early Modern English with special reference to the position of the subject and the finite verb. Oslo: Novus Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bækken, Bjørg. 1999. Periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 20. 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1999.20.1-2.107.Search in Google Scholar

Bækken, Bjørg. 2002. Yet this follie doth many times assault the brauest minds: Affirmative declarative do in 17th-century English. Nordic Journal of English Studies 1. 317–337. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.120.Search in Google Scholar

Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in modern times: 1700–1945. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Alessandro Lenci. 2012. Habituality, pluriactionality, and imperfectivity. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 852–880. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0030Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey N. Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Binnick, Robert I. 2005. The markers of habitual aspect in English. Journal of English Linguistics 33(4). 339–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424205286006.Search in Google Scholar

Bliss, Alan. 1972. Languages in contact: Some problems of Hiberno-English. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature 72. 63–82.Search in Google Scholar

Bliss, Alan. 1979. Spoken English in Ireland 1600–1740. Twenty-seven representative texts. Dublin: The Dolmen Press.Search in Google Scholar

Boneh, Nora & Łukasz Jędrzejowski. 2019. Reflections on habituality across other grammatical categories. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 72(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2019-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Brownless, Alex. 2021. Whose testimony is it? Institutional influence in the 1641 Depositions. In Lydia Wiernik (ed.), ULAB XI proceedings, university of Aberdeen 16–18 april 2021, 61–74. Undergraduate Linguistics Association of Great Britain.Search in Google Scholar

Budts, Sara. 2022. A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic DO in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18(2). 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0080.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. & Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Introduction. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 1–26. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.01bybSearch in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Carlson, Greg N. 2006. Generics, habituals and iteratives. In Keith Brown (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 18–21. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00256-XSearch in Google Scholar

Clarke, Aidan. 1986. The 1641 Depositions. In Peter Fox (ed.), Treasures of the library: Trinity College Dublin, 111–122. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, Sandra. 2010. Newfoundland and Labrador English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748631414Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, Sandra. 2024. From Ireland to Newfoundland. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Irish English, 518–540. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198856153.013.22Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Coolahan, Marie-Louise. 2010. Women, writing, and language in Early Modern Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567652.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Cusack, Bridget. 1998. Everyday English 1500–1700: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.3998/mpub.10937Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1975. On generics. In Edward L. Keenan (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language, 99–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511897696.009Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. London: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Dahl, Torsten. 1956. Linguistic studies in some Elizabethan writings, vol. 2: The auxiliary do. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Search in Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary ‘do’. The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Search in Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 2004. Some strategies for coding sentential subjects in English: From exaptation to grammaticalization. Studies in Language 28(2). 321–361. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.2.03fan.Search in Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 2025. Tense, aspect and modality in the history of English. In Joan C. Beal (ed.), The New Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: Change, transmission and ideology, 330–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa, Paula Rodríguez-Puente, María José López-Couso, Belén Méndez-Naya, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo, Cristina Blanco-García & Iván Tamaredo. 2017. The Corpus of Historical English Law Reports 1535–1999 (CHELAR): A resource for analysing the development of English legal discourse. ICAME Journal 41. 53–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2017-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku. 1999. The grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. London & New York: Routledge.10.2307/29742738Search in Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku. 2024. The grammar of Irish English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Irish English, 144–178. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198856153.013.8Search in Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola & Heli Paulasto. 2008. English and Celtic in contact. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203895009Search in Google Scholar

Fortuin, Egbert. 2023. Unbounded repetition, habituality, and aspect from a comparative perspective. Folia Linguistica 57(1). 135–175. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2022-2054.Search in Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew. 1998. On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 2(2). 283–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674300000897.Search in Google Scholar

Gregersen, Sune & Eva van Lier. 2024. Habituals around the world. Paper presented at the international workshop Habituals and habitual auxiliaries, Université Paris 8, 7 October.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, John W. 1986. Expanding the superstrate: Habitual aspect markers in Atlantic Englishes. English World-Wide 7(2). 171–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.7.2.02har.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195083873.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Henry, Patrick Leo. 1957. An Anglo-Irish dialect of North Roscommon. Dublin: Dept. of English, University College Dublin.Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 1997. Arguments for creolisation in Irish English. In Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, 969–1038. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820751.969Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2005. Dublin English: Evolution and change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g35Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English: History and present-day forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551048Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2012. Standard Irish English. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Standards of English. Codified varieties around the world, 96–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139023832.006Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond. 2024. The history of English in Ireland, 1200–1800. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Oxford handbook of Irish English, 39–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198856153.013.3Search in Google Scholar

Hoffman, Grace. 2021. The ‘traiterous’ and ‘unfitting’ words in Ireland’s 1641 depositions: The legal, social, violent, and emotional implications of language. Dublin: Trininity College Dublin PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Ihalainen, Ossi. 1976. Periphrastic ‘do’ in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77(4). 608–622.Search in Google Scholar

Jäger, Andreas. 2005. The cross-linguistic function of obligatory ‘do’-periphrasis. In Ilana Mushin (ed.), Proceedings of the 2004 conference of the Australian linguistic society, 1–16. Sydney: Australian Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Jäger, Andreas. 2007. Grammaticalization paths of periphrastic ‘do’-constructions. Studies van de BKL/Travaux du CBL/Papers of the LSB. 1–18. https://sites.uclouvain.be/bkl-cbl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/jag2007.pdf (accessed 25 October 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1986. The co-occurrence of do and be in Hiberno-English. In John Harris, David Little & David Singleton (eds.), Perspectives on the English language in Ireland. Proceedings of the first symposium on Hiberno-English, 133–147. Dublin: Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin.Search in Google Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1989. Tense and aspect categories in Irish English. English World-Wide 10(1). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.10.1.02kal.Search in Google Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1994. English in Ireland. In Robert Burchfield (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 5: English in Britain and overseas: Origins and development, 148–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264785.005Search in Google Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey L. 2012. Varieties of English: English in Ireland. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds.), English historical linguistics. An international handbook, 1961–1976. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110251609.1961Search in Google Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey L. 2013. Irish English, vol. 2: The Republic of Ireland. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614511298Search in Google Scholar

Klemola, Juhani. 1994. Periphrastic DO in South-Western dialects of British English: A reassessment. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 2. 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/dig.1994.1994.2.33.Search in Google Scholar

Kopaczyk, Joanna & Hans Sauer (eds.). 2017. Binomials in the history of English. Fixed and flexible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316339770Search in Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja, Peter J. Grund & Terry Walker. 2011. Testifying to language and life in Early Modern England. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.162Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic applications, 43–70. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language change. Journal of Linguistics 26(1). 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700014432.Search in Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620928Search in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 2nd edn. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

McCafferty, Kevin & Carolina P. Amador-Moreno. 2012. A Corpus of Irish English Correspondence (CORIECOR). A tool for studying the history and evolution of Irish English. In Bettina Mige & Máire Ní Chiosáin (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English, 265–287. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/veaw.g44.13mccSearch in Google Scholar

Neels, Jakob. 2015. The history of the quasi-auxiliary use(d) to. A usage-based account. Journal of Historical Linguistics 5(2). 177–234. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.5.2.01nee.Search in Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. Motivated archaism: The use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 303–320. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Nicolle, Steve. 2012. Diachrony and grammaticalization. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 370–397. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0012Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A social history of periphrastic do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, Arja. 2000. The rise and fall of periphrastic do in Early Modern English, or “Howe the Scotts will declare themselv’s”. In Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & C. B. McCully (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, 373–394. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110814699.373Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, Arja. 2018. Periphrastic do in eighteenth-century correspondence: Emphasis on no social variation. In Terttu Nevalainen, Minna Palander-Collin & Tanja Säily (eds.), Patterns of change in 18th-century English. A sociolinguistic approach, 117–135. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ahs.8.08nurSearch in Google Scholar

OED = Oxford English Dictionary online. http://www.oed.com/ (accessed 25 October 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Ohlmeyer, Jane. 2009. Anatomy of plantation: The 1641 Depositions. History Ireland 17(6). 54–56.Search in Google Scholar

Otway, Thomas. 1677. The cheats of Scapin. London: Printed for Richard Tonson. https://gredos.usal.es/bitstream/handle/10366/124302/SC_Otway_CheatsScapin_1677.pdf;sequence=1 (accessed 15 September 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1985. Periphrastic do in affirmative statements in Early American English. Journal of English Linguistics 18(2). 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/007542428501800205.Search in Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1991. Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 321–342. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005Search in Google Scholar

Ronan, Patricia. 2011. Irish English habitual ‘do be’: More on origins and use. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 53(2). 105–118.Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, Gerold. 2013. Describing Irish English with the ICE Ireland corpus. Cahiers de l’ILSL 38. 139–162. https://doi.org/10.26034/la.cdclsl.2013.749.Search in Google Scholar

Scott, Michael. 2012. WordSmith tools, version 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110846829Search in Google Scholar

Stein, Dieter. 1991. Semantic aspects of syntactic change. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 355–366. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Sundby, Bertil, Anne Kari Bjørge & Kari E. Haugland. 1991. A dictionary of English normative grammar 1700–1800. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sihols.63Search in Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1987. The auxiliary ‘do’ in eighteenth-century English: A sociohistorical-linguistic approach. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783111404820Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1972. A history of English syntax. A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Search in Google Scholar

Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Warner, Anthony. 2012. Early Modern English: Periphrastic do. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds.), English historical linguistics. An international handbook, 743–756. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110251593.743Search in Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2008. What makes a syntactic change stop? On the decline of periphrastic do in Early Modern English affirmative declarative clauses. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44. 139–154.Search in Google Scholar

Wright, Susan M. 1991. On the stylistic basis of syntactic change. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 469–492. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Reanalysis in the history of do: A view from Construction Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 529–574. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.529.Search in Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2006. Omnitemporal will. Language Sciences 28. 76–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2004.10.003.Search in Google Scholar