Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T14:26:08.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - The Actuation Problem

from Part IV - Major Issues and Themes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2017

Adam Ledgeway
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
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

Aitchison, J. 2003. ‘Psycholinguistic perspectives on language change’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 736–43.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. 1973. Abductive and deductive change, Language 49: 765–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, J., Archangeli, D. and Mielke, J. 2011. ‘Variability in English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem’, Language Variation & Change 23: 347374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2006. ‘Phonological change in Optimality Theory’, in Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 9, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 497505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2007. ‘Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC)’, in Bisetto, A. and Barbieri, F. (eds.), Proceedings of XXXIII incontro di grammatica generativa, pp. 86105.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2008. ‘Linearising disharmonic word orders: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Yoon, J. Y. and Kim, K.-A. (eds.), Perspectives on linguistics in the 21st Century. Seoul: Hankook Munhwasa, pp. 301–18.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I. 2014. ‘A syntactic universal and its consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Newton, G. and Sheehan, M. 2009. ‘Limiting synchronic and diachronic variation and change: the Final-Over-Final Constraint’, Language and Linguistics 10: 701–43.Google Scholar
Börjars, K. and Vincent, N. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and directionality’, in Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, pp. 163–76.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 1975. ‘Constraints on sound change’, in Dahlstedt, K.-H. (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics, vol. 2. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 388406.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Adger, D. and Fox, S. 2013. ‘Relative who and the actuation problem’, Lingua 126: 5177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. and Muysken, P. 1986. ‘The availability of universal grammar to adult and child learners: A study of the acquisition of German word order’, Second Language Research 2: 93119.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. 2012. ‘The course of actualization’, Language 88: 601–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitler, T. 2006. ‘Some sociolectal, dialectal and communicative aspects of word order variation in late Middle English’, unpublished PhD thesis, Eötvös Loránd University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, K. and Jones, M.C. 2002. ‘Introduction’, in Jones, M. C. and Esch, E. (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external, and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 116.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 2010. ‘Contact and the early history of English’, in Hickey, R. (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Oxford University Press, pp. 432–53.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M. and Sayehli, S. 2002. ‘Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing’, Second Language Research 18: 250–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, M. 1998. ‘Diachronic syntax’, Syntax 1: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1990. ‘A parsing theory of word order universals’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–61.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2002a. ‘Symmetries and asymmetries: Their grammar, typology and parsing’, Theoretical Linguistics 28: 95149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2002b. ‘Issues at the performance-grammar interface: Some comments on the commentaries’, Theoretical Linguistics 28: 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2007. ‘Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it’, New Ideas in Psychology 25: 87107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. 1948. ‘Studies in the logic of explanation’, Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2000. ‘Deriving OV order in Finnish’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–52.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (ed.) 2000. Optimality theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, A. K., Sigurðsson, E. F. and Wallenberg, J. C. 2012. ‘Antisocial syntax: Disentangling the Icelandic VO/OV parameter and its lexical remains’, paper presented at DiGS 14, Lisbon, 6 July.Google Scholar
King, R. D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
King, R. 2000. The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island case study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1: 199244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2: 180201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 2000. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 629739.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. and Taylor, A. 1997. ‘Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact’, in van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge University Press, pp. 297325.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1982. ‘Building on empirical foundations’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2007. ‘Transmission and diffusion’, Language 83: 344–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. and Harris, W. A. 1986. ‘De facto segregation of Black and White vernaculars’, in Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diversity and diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 124.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 57139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewens, T. 2007. ‘Cultural evolution’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/. Accessed 2 November 2012.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2002. ‘Myths and the prehistory of grammars’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 113–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2013. ‘Types of explanation in history’, Language (Historical Syntax) 89: e18e39.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2009. ‘The copula cycle’, in van Gelderen, E. (ed.), Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–42.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. 2009. ‘The development of negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1976. Evolution and the diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 2004. What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. 1921. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 1st edn. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. 2003. ‘What lies beneath: Split (mixed) languages as contact phenomena’, in Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naro, A. 1981. ‘The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change’, Language 57: 6398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 1st edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 1999. Phrase structures in competition: Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2003. ‘Variationist approaches to syntactic change’, in Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 509–28.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2005. ‘Arguments against a universal base: Evidence from Old English’, English Language and Linguistics 9: 115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 1999. ‘A formal approach to “grammaticalization”’, Linguistics 37: 1011–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1980. ‘Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism’, Philosophy of Science 47: 350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, 141–77.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, F. 1988. Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, F. 1995. ‘Outlining a model of the transmission phenomenon in language contact’, Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 6385.Google Scholar
van Coetsem, F. 2000. A general and unified theory of the transmission process in language contact. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2009. ‘Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer’, Transactions of the Philological Society 107: 131–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, G. 2009. ‘Deriving the Final-over-Final Constraint from third factor considerations’, Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5: 6772.Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2012. ‘Against inertia’, Lingua 122: 891901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerman, F. 1993. ‘The diachronic consequences of first and second language acquisition: the change from OV to VO’, Linguistics 31: 903–31.CrossRefGoogle 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. 95189.Google Scholar
Winford, D. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Winford, D. 2005. ‘Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes’, Diachronica 22: 373427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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.

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.

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.

Available formats
×