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
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- 23 Endogenous and Exogenous Theories of Syntactic Change
- 24 Imperfect Transmission and Discontinuity
- 25 Social Conditioning
- 26 Non-syntactic Sources and Triggers of Syntactic Change
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
24 - Imperfect Transmission and Discontinuity
from Part V - Explanations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
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
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- 23 Endogenous and Exogenous Theories of Syntactic Change
- 24 Imperfect Transmission and Discontinuity
- 25 Social Conditioning
- 26 Non-syntactic Sources and Triggers of Syntactic Change
- 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. 515 - 533Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Casti, J. 1994. Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1992. ‘The selection of syntactic knowledge’, Language Acquisition 2: 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 1999. ‘Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1954. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fries, C. 1940. ‘On the development of the structural use of word-order in Modern English’, Language 16: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002a. ‘Inflectional morphology and the loss of verb second in English’, in Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press, pp. 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002b. ‘Observations on the loss of verb second in the history of English’, in Zwart, C. J.-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in comparative Germanic syntax: Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on comparative Germanic syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–72.Google Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Wilson, F. and Vikner, S. 2012. ‘Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese’, Language 88: 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humboldt, W. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin [Linguistic variability and intellectual development, trans. Buck, G. C. and Raven, F. A. 1971. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press].Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1995. At home in the Universe: The search for laws of self-organisation and complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–54.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Linguistic universals and linguistic change’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, K. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Santorini, B. 2013. ‘What a parsed corpus is and how to use it’, paper presented at LSA Summer Institute Workshop on diachronic syntax, www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/lsa13ws.html.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2003. ‘Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992’, in Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. and Palmer, F. (eds.), Modality in contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 223–40.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1995. ‘Grammars for people’, Journal of Linguistics 31: 393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2011. ‘Multilingualism everywhere’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 162–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. H. 2009. ‘What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis’, English Language and Linguistics 13: 163–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, J. 2011. ‘Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14: 121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchener, W. G. and Nowak, M. A. 2004. ‘Chaos and language’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B, 271: 701–04.Google ScholarPubMed
Narayanan, H. and Niyogi, P. 2013. ‘Language evolution, coalescent processes, and the consensus problem on a social network’, unpublished MS available at http://faculty.washington.edu/harin/LangEvol.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. 1995. ‘The logical problem of language change’, MIT AI Memo no. 1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. 1997. ‘A dynamical systems model of language change’, Complex Systems 11: 161–204.Google Scholar
O’Neil, W. 1978. ‘The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A study in the causes of language change’, Orbis 27: 248–85.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1877. ‘Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungssilben in den ältesten germanischen Dialecten’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 4: 314–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thom, R. 1989. Structural stability and morphogenesis: An outline of a general theory of models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2002. Sociolinguistic variation and change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, J. Forthcoming. ‘Extraposition is disappearing’, Language.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–189.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by