Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:43:19.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Cyclicity

from Part IV - Major Issues and Themes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

By
Elly van Gelderen
Edited by
Adam Ledgeway  and
Ian Roberts
Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 467 - 488
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, M. 1987. ‘From Old French to the theory of Pro-drop’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bopp, F. 1816. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt-am-Main.Google Scholar
Butt, M. and Lahiri, A. 2013. ‘Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs’, Lingua 135: 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Topics in the theory of generative grammar. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by phase’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. ‘Approaching UG from below’, in Gärtner, H.-M. and Sauerland, U. (eds.), Interface + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Condillac, E. B. 1746. Essai sur lórigine des connaissances humaines. Paris.Google Scholar
Crowley, T. 1992. An introduction to historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, O. 2001. ‘Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere’, in Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 471–80.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 1975. ‘The transformational cycle in Dutch and German’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Franzén, T. 1939. Etude sur la syntaxe des pronoms personnels sujets en ancien français. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. [1891] 1901. Die Sprachwissenshaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 2nd edn. Leipzig: Weigel (reprint Tübingen: Narr 1972).Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology’, Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. 1976. ‘Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 151–88.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, G. 2011. Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1954. ‘A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language’, in Spencer, R. (ed.), Method and perspective in anthropology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, pp. 192–220.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1978. ‘How does a language acquire gender markers?’, in Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 3. Stanford University Press, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar
Haas, M. 1946. ‘A grammatical sketch of Tunica’, in Hoijer, H. (ed.), Linguistic structures of native America. New York: Viking, pp. 337–66.Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1978. The evolution of French syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, C. 1970. ‘The linguistic cycle’, Linguistic Sciences: 13: 1–7.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 2009. ‘Jespersen recycled’, in van Gelderen, (ed.), pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Hopper, M. and Traugott, E. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, W. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und seinen Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts.Google Scholar
Ingham, R. and Larrivée, P. (eds.) 2011. The evolution of negation: Beyond the Jespersen Cycle. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst (reprinted 1966).Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1922. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Katz, A. 1996. ‘Cyclical grammaticalization and the cognitive link between pronoun and copula’, unpublished PhD thesis, Rice University.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization as optimization’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. and Condoravdi, C. 2006. ‘Tracking Jespersen’s Cycle’, in Janse, M., Joseph, B. and Ralli, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference of modern Greek dialects and linguistic theory. Mytilene: Doukas, pp. 172–97.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Language in the inner city. University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, antitopic, and verb agreement in non standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrivée, P. 2010. ‘The pragmatic motifs of the Jespersen Cycle: Default, activation, and the history of negation in French’, Lingua 120(9): 2240–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1982 [1995]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change’, Lingua e stile 20(3): 303–18.Google Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1977. ‘A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 414–44.Google Scholar
Loprieno, A. 1995. Ancient Egyptian. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loprieno, A. 2001. ‘From Ancient Egyptian to Coptic’, in Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. [1912] 1921. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, in Champion, E. (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, pp.130–48 (reprinted 1958).Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2012. ‘Mechanisms of language change in a functional system: The recent semantic evolution of English future time expressions’, Journal of Historical Linguistics 2(1): 83–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. (eds.) 2012. Oxford handbook on historical English linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pustet, R. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2009. ‘Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy, and semantic bleaching’, in Trousdale, G. and Traugott, E. (eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1967. A short history of linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A. W. 1818. Observations sur la langue et la litérature provençales. Paris.Google Scholar
Schwegler, A. 1990. Analyticity and syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2001. Toward a cognitive semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tauli, V. 1958. The structural tendencies of languages. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Tauli, V. 1966. Structural tendencies in Uralic languages. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Tooke, J. H. 1786–1805. The viversion of Purley. London.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. 1991. Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. 2009. ‘The Jespersen cycles’, in van Gelderen, (ed.), pp. 35–71.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2000. A history of English reflexive pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2008. ‘Where did late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy’, Studia Linguistica 62(3): 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. (ed.) 2009. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2013. ‘The linguistic cycle and the language faculty’, Language and Linguistics Compass 7: 233–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. (ed.) 2016. Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in Medieval French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D., Lucas, C. and Breitbarth, A. (eds.) 2013. The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2013. ‘Quantity nouns and grammaticalisation: Language change and couple and pair’, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1994. ‘La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs’, Travaux de Linguistique et Litterature 32: 131–47.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Cyclicity
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
  • Online publication: 28 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.023
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Cyclicity
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
  • Online publication: 28 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.023
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Cyclicity
  • Edited by Adam Ledgeway, University of Cambridge, Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
  • Online publication: 28 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107279070.023
Available formats
×