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
- 9 The Comparative Method and Comparative Reconstruction
- 10 Internal Reconstruction
- 11 Corpora and Quantitative Methods
- 12 Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Syntax: The Parametric Comparison Method
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
10 - Internal Reconstruction
from Part II - Methods and Tools
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
- 9 The Comparative Method and Comparative Reconstruction
- 10 Internal Reconstruction
- 11 Corpora and Quantitative Methods
- 12 Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Syntax: The Parametric Comparison Method
- 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. 207 - 217Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
References
Anderson, S.R. 2014. ‘Morphological change’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 264–85.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2014. ‘Syntax and syntactic reconstruction’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 343–73.Google Scholar
Baxter, W. H. 2002. ‘Where does the ‘comparative method’ come from?’, in Cavoto, F. (ed.), The linguist’s linguist: A collection of papers in honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
Baxter, W. H. and Sagart, L. 2014. Old Chinese: A new reconstruction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, C. and Evans, B. (eds.) 2014. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Collé, C. 1974. ‘La vérité dans le vin, ou les désagrémens de la galanterie’, in Truchet, J. (ed.), Théâtre du XVIIIe siècle (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), vol. 2. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 599–655.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. 1987. La morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. 1971. ‘Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax’, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 85: 5–22.Google Scholar
Dufter, A. 2013. ‘Zur Geschichte der ne-Absenz in der neufranzösischen Satznegation’, in Fesenmeier, L., Grutschus, A. and Patzelt, C. (eds.), L’absence au niveau syntagmatique. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, pp. 131–58.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, G. and Goldbach, M. (eds.) 2008. Principles of syntactic reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Construction: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. and Zanuttini, R. 1991. ‘Negative heads and the Neg-criterion’, The Linguistic Review 8: 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. 2008. ‘Reconstruction in syntax’, in Ferraresi, and Goldbach, (eds.), pp. 73–95.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D. 2010. ‘Internal reconstruction’, in Luraghi, S. and Bubenik, V. (eds.), The continuum companion to historical linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 52–58.Google Scholar
Koch, H. 2014. ‘Morphological reconstruction’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 286–307.Google Scholar
Lühr, R. 2008. ‘Competitive Indo-European syntax’, in Ferraresi, and Goldbach, (eds.), pp. 121–59.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1969. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge, 3rd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2003. ‘Internal reconstruction’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 244–61.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. ‘Negation, wh-movement and the null subject parameter’, in Rizzi, L., Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 117–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohlfs, G. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. II: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Uth, M. 2011. Französische Ereignisnominalisierungen. Abstrakte Bedeutung und regelhafte Wortbildung. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uth, M. 2012. ‘The lexicalist hypothesis and the semantics of event nominalization suffixes’, in Gaglia, S. and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds.), Inflection and word formation in Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 347–67.Google Scholar