Barker , Hannah, and Elaine Chalus. 1997. Introduction. In Gender in Eighteenth-Century England, edited by Hannah Barker and Elaine Chalus, 1-28. London: Longman.
2.
Bebout , Linda. 1995. Asymmetries in Male/Female Word Pairs: A Decade of Change. American Speech70 (2): 163-185.
3.
Biber , Douglas, and Jená Burges. 2000. Historical Change in the Language Use of Women and Men: Gender Differences in Dramatic Dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics28 (1): 21-37.
4.
Biber , Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1992. The Linguistic Evolution of Five Written and Speech-Based English Genres from the 17th to the 20th Centuries. In History of Englishes, edited by Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen, and Irma Taavitsainen, 688-704. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
5.
Brown , Penelope, and Stephen Levinson.1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Brown , Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1989. Politeness Theory and Shakespeare's Four Major Tragedies. Language in Society18:159-212.
7.
Coates, Jennifer . [1986] 1993. Women, Men and Language. Reprint, London: Longman.
8.
Cressy , David.1980. Literacy and Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Culpeper , Jonathan, and Merja Kytö.2000a. Data in Historical Pragmatics: Spoken Interaction (Re)cast as Writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics1 (2): 175-199.
10.
Culpeper , Jonathan, and Merja Kytö. 2000b. Gender Voices in the Spoken Interaction of the Past: A Pilot Study Based on Early Modern English Trial Proceedings. In The History of English in a Social Context, edited by Dieter Kastovsky and Arthur Mettinger, 53-89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11.
Fletcher , Anthony.1996. Gender, Sex and Subordination in England 1500-1800. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Foyster , Elizabeth A.1999. Manhood in Early Modern England: Honour, Sex and Marriage. London: Longman.
13.
Heal , Felicity, and Clive Holmes.1994. The Gentry in England and Wales 1500-1700. London: Macmillan.
14.
Holmes , Janet.1998. Women's Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals. In Language and Gender, edited by Jennifer Coates, 461-483. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
15.
Holmes , Janet.2000. Ladies and Gentlemen: Corpus Analysis and Linguistic Sexism. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt, 141-155. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
16.
Houlbrooke , Ralph A.1984. The English Family 1450-1700. London: Longman.
17.
Hudson , Richard.1996. Sociolinguistics. 2d ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
James , Deborah. 1996. Women, Men and Prestige Speech Forms: A Critical Review. In Rethinking Language and Gender Research: Theory and Practice, edited by Victoria L. Bergvall, Janet M. Bing, and Alice F. Freed, 98-125. London: Longman.
19.
James , Deborah, and Janice Drakich. 1993. Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research. In Gender and Conversational Interaction, edited by Deborah Tannen, 281-312. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Jespersen , Otto.1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen & Unwin.
21.
Kopytko , Roman.1993. Polite Discourse in Shakespeare's English. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
22.
Labov , William.1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
23.
Labov , William.1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
24.
Lakoff , Robin.1975. Language and Woman's Place.New York:Harper & Row.
25.
Markus , Manfred.2001. The Development of Prose in Early Modern English in View of the Gender Question: Using Grammatical Idiosyncrasies of 15th and 17th Century Letters. European Journal of English Studies5 (2): 181-196.
26.
Mugglestone , Lynda.1995. Talking Proper: The Rise of Accent as a Social Symbol. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
27.
Munck , Thomas.2000. The Enlightenment: A Comparative Social History 1721-1794. London: Arnold.
28.
Nevala , Minna.2001. With out any pregyduce or hindranc: Editing Women's Letters from 17th-Century Norfolk. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen102 (2): 151-171.
29.
Nevala , Minna.Forthcoming. Family First: Address Formulae in English Family Correspondence from the 15th to the 17th Century. In Origin and Development of Address Terms in European Languages, edited by Irma Taavitsainen and Andreas Jucker.Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30.
Nevalainen , Terttu.1994. Ladies and Gentlemen: The Generalization of Titles in Early Modern English. In English Historical Linguistics 1992, edited by Francisco Fernández, Miguel Fuster, and Juan José Calvo, 317-327. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31.
Nevalainen , Terttu.1999. Making the Best Use of “Bad” Data: Evidence for Sociolinguistic Variation in Early Modern English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen100 (4): 499-533.
32.
Nevalainen , Terttu.2000. Gender Differences in the Evolution of Standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics28 (1): 38-59.
33.
Nevalainen , Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1993. Early Modern English. In Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, edited by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Minna Palander-Collin, 53-73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
34.
Nevalainen , Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1995. Constraints on Politeness: The Pragmatics of Address Formulae in Early English Correspondence. In Historical Pragmatics, edited by Andreas Jucker, 541-601. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
35.
Nevalainen , Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1996. The Corpus of Early English Correspondence. In Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, edited by Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, 39-54. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
36.
Nevalainen , Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. Forthcoming. Historical Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
37.
Nurmi , Arja.1999. A Social History of Periphrastic DO (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 56). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
38.
Okulska , Urszula.1999. Stereotypes and Language Stigma: The Causes of Prejudice against the Weaker Sex in Early Modern England. Studia Anglica Poznaniensia34:171-190.
39.
O'Mara , V. M.1996. Female Scribal Activity in Late Medieval England: The Evidence?Leeds Studies in English27:87-130.
40.
Palander-Collin , Minna.1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique 55). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
41.
Palander-Collin , Minna.2000. The Language of Husbands and Wives in Seventeenth-Century Correspondence. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt, 289-300. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
42.
Rissanen , Matti.2000. The World of English Historical Corpora: From Cædmon to the Computer Age. Journal of English Linguistics28 (1): 7-20.
43.
Romaine , Suzanne.1988. Historical Sociolinguistics: Problems and Methodology. In Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, edited by Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, and Klaus J. Mattheier, 1452-1469. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
44.
Sigley , Robert, and Janet Holmes.2002. Looking at girls in Corpora of English. Journal of English Linguistics30 (2): 138-157.
45.
Steinvall , Anders.2000. Aspects of Elaborate Colour Terms in Victorian Poetry. In The Evidence of Literature: Interrogating Texts in English Studies, edited by Sven-Johan Spånberg, Henryk Kardela, and Gerald Porter, 403-419. Lublin: Maria Curie–Sklodowska University Press.