Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T12:18:09.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical linguistics and language change: Progress or decay? (Review article)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Suzanne Romaine
Suzanne Romaine
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The title of this review article is inspired by Jean Aitchison's (1981) textbook, Language change: Progress or decay?, although I do not intend to discuss her book here. By including historical linguistics, I want to focus attention on the question of whether there has been any progress in the discipline of historical linguistics rather than whether, as Aitchison queries, language change can be thought of in terms of progress or decay (although that question, too, had its heyday [see, for example, Jespersen 18941]). I will start with a simplistic view of “progress” and assume that the notion can be coherently applied to a discipline or research paradigm: assuming that a central goal of historical linguistics is to “explain” language change, if historical linguistics can provide an answer to this question, then the discipline has “progressed.” The two books which I will discuss here, David Lightfoot's Principles of diachronic syntax (1979) and Roger Lass's On explaining language change (1980), bear on this issue although in rather different ways.

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1983 , pp. 223 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

REFERENCES

Aitchison, J. (1981). Language change: Progress or decay? London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Basso, K. (1980). Review of J. Goody, The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge University Press, 1977. Language in Society 9:72–80.Google Scholar
Bennett, P. A. (1979). Observations on the Transparency Principle. Linguistics 17:843–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, T., & Langendoen, D. T. (1972). The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language. In Stockwell, R. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 32–95.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. (ed.) (1974). Explaining linguistic phenomena. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Cohen, D., & Wirth, J. (eds.) (1975). Testing linguistic hypotheses. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. L. (1978). Karl Marx's theory of history. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Dearholt, D., & Valdés-Fallis, G. (1978). Toward a probabilistic automata model of some aspects of code-switching. Language in Society 7:411–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., & van, der Leek F. (1981). Optional vs. radical re-analysis: Mechanisms of syntactic change. Lingua 55:301–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hemann, E. (1931). Lautgesetz und Analogie. Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Kiasse. Neue Folge, Band XXIII:1–202.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1953). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Translated by Whitfield, F. J.. Baltimore: Waverly.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1978). Linguistics and metascience. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (forthcoming). Causality in linguistics. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language with special reference to English. London: Swann Sonnenschein and Co.Google Scholar
King, R. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1:97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I.. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press. 91–197.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1979). The English passive: An argument for historical rule stability. Linguistic Inquiry 10:667–88.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1981). A reply to some Critics. Lingua 55:351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell., P. (1979). Psychological reality in phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McBeth, N. (1974). Darwin retried. London: Garnstone.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1972). The logic of scientfic discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1973). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1980a). What is a speech community Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 4:41–60.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1980b). The relative clause marker in Scots English. Language in Society 9:221–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981a). Syntactic complexity, relativization and stylistic levels in Middle Scots. Folia Historica Linguistica 2:56–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981b). The status of variable rules in sociolinguistic theory. Journal of Linguistics 17:93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1981c). The Transparency Principle: What it is and why it doesn't work. Lingua 55:227–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1982). Socio-historical linguistics. Its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Poplack, S. (1979). A formal grammar for code-switching. Paper given at the Linguistic Society of America winter meeting. Los Angeles, Califomia.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Brown, P. (1976). The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52:631–66.Google Scholar
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1979). Linguistic convergence. An ethnography of speaking at Fort Chipewyan. Alberta. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Soeffner, H.-G. (ed.) (1979). Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschafren. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions in historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–195.Google Scholar