Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
3 - Exaptation
from Part I - Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 49 - 69Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Boesch, C. 1993. ‘Aspects of transmission of tool use in wild chimpanzees’, in Gibso, K. and Ingold, T. (eds.), Tools, language, and cognition in human evolution. Cambridge University Press, pp. 171–83.Google Scholar
Breivik, L. 1983. Existential there: A synchronic and diachronic study. Bergen: Department of English, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Browne, W. 1974. ‘The problem of clitic placement in Serbo-Croatian’, in Brecht, R. and Chvany, C. (eds.), Slavic transformational syntax, vol. 10. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Materials, pp. 36–52.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cook, E.-D. 2004. A grammar of Dene Suline (Chipewyan) (Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Special Athabaskan Number Memoir 17). Winnipeg: Algonkian & Iroquoian Linguistics.Google Scholar
Danto, A. 1983. The transfiguration of the commonplace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darmesteter, A. 1887. La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. Paris: Delagrave.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1970. ‘Olgolo syllable structure and what they are doing about it’, Linguistic Inquiry 1: 273–6.Google Scholar
Ellegard, A. 1953. The auxiliary DO: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almkvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. 1992. ‘Discourse and diachrony: The rise and fall of Old French si’, in Gerritsen, M. and Stein, D. (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 433–73.Google Scholar
Franks, S. 1998. ‘Clitics in Slavic’, paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, IN, June.Google Scholar
Gould, S. and Vrba, E. 1982. ‘Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form’, Paleobiology 8: 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregerson, K. 1984. ‘Pharynx symbolism in Rengao phonology’, Lingua 62: 209–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1998. ‘Possible sources of infixation in Khmer’, Studies in Language 22: 595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1994. ‘Ritualization and the development of language’, in Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. and Ourn, N. 2003. ‘Nouns, verbs, and syntactic backsliding in Khmer’, Studies in Language 27(3): 505–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2004. ‘On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization’, in Fischer, O., Norde, M. and Perridon, H. (eds.), Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2003. ‘On degrammaticalization’, in Blake, B. and Burridge, K. (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 163–79.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, V. 2013. ‘The stronghold in the Balkans: Early Modern Romanian infinitives’, paper presented at the 45th meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europae, Split University.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. [1931] 1972. ‘Principles of historical phonology’, in Keiler, A. (ed.), A reader in historical linguistics. New York: Holt, pp. 121–38.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1943. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vols. I–VII. London and Copenhagen: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1995. ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’, in Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause structure and language change. Oxford University Press, pp. 140–69.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. [1965] 1975. ‘The evolution of grammatical categories’, in Kuryłowicz, J. (ed.), Esquisses linguistiques II. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, pp. 38–54.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, C. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 57–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. 1990. ‘How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution’, Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2008. ‘Satisfying V2 in Early Romance: Merge vs Move’, Journal of Linguistics 44: 437–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. 1960. Categories and types of English word formation. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Margulies, L. and Sagan, D. 1997. Microcosmos. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M. 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies’, unpublished MS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ourn, N. and Haiman, J. 2000. ‘Symmetrical compounds in Khmer’, Studies in Language 24: 483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinnow, H.-J. 1978. ‘Remarks on the structure of the Khmer syllable and word’, Mon-Khmer Studies 8: 131–37.Google Scholar
Pott, A. 1862. Die Doppelung(Reduplikation, Gemination) als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache. NP: Lemgo & Detmold.Google Scholar
Prakorb, C.-n. 1992. ‘The problem of aspirates in Central Khmer and Northern Khmer’, Mon-Khmer Studies 22: 252–6.Google Scholar
Roffe, G. E. 1975. ‘Rhyme, reduplication, etc. in Lao’, in Harris, J. G. and Chamberlain, J. R. (eds.), Studies in Tai linguistics in honor of William J. Gedney. Bangkok: Central Institute of English Language, pp. 285–317.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A. 1985. ‘Speech act distinctions in syntax’, in Shopen, T. (ed.), Typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure. Cambridge University Press, pp. 155–96.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. 1982. ‘How imperatives are special and how they aren’t’, in Schneider, R., Tuite, K. and Chametzky, R. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on nondeclaratives. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 202–18.Google Scholar
Stanford, J. 2007. ‘Sui adjective reduplication as poetic morpho-phonology’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16(2): 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurneysen, R. 1892. ‘Zur Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen’, Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 16: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, N. 1952. ‘“Derived” activities’, Quarterly Journal of Biology 27: 1–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Twaddell, W. F. 1938. ‘A note on Old High German umlaut’, Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 37: 177–81.Google Scholar
Vajda, E. 2010. ‘A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages’, in Kari, J. and Potter, B. (eds.), The Siberian–Yeniseian connection. Fairbanks: University of Abaska, Department of Anthropology, pp. 33–99.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. 1892. ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’, Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, B. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, E. 2008. ‘Ashkii Bizaad: Verbal morphology loss in one young speaker’s Navajo’, unpublished thesis, Macalester College.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology (abridged edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar