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
23 - Endogenous and Exogenous Theories of Syntactic Change
from Part V - Explanations
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
- 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. 491 - 514Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Allen, C. L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristar, A. R. 1991. ‘On diachronic sources and synchronic pattern: An investigation into the origin of linguistic universals’, Language 67: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2010. ‘Impossible changes and impossible borrowings: The Final-over-Final Constraint’, in Breitbarth, A., Lucas, C., Willis, D. and Watts, S. (eds.), Continuity and change in grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Sheehan, M. and Newton, G. 2005. ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993. ‘Pro-drop in Early Modern Swedish’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 115–32.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 1992. ‘Syntax’, in Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and van der Wurff, W. 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. 2012. ‘The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality’, in Jonas, D., Whitman, J. and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford University Press, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
Gerritsen, M. and Stein, D. 1992. ‘Introduction: On “internal” and “external” in syntactic change’, in Gerritsen, M. and Stein, G. (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. B. 1978. ‘The inter-relationship between phonological and grammatical change’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 159–72.Google Scholar
Harris, M. B. 1984. ‘On the strengths and weaknesses of a typological approach to historical syntax’, in Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 183–97.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1990a. ‘A parsing theory of word order universals’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–61.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1990b. ‘Seeking motives for change in typological variation’, in Croft, W. A., Denning, K. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony: Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1975. ‘On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 113–47.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part III: Syntax, vol. II. Heidelberg: C. Winters.Google Scholar
Julien, M. and Garbacz, P. 2014. ‘Prepositions expressing source in Norwegian’, Nordic Atlas of Language Structures Journal 1: 191–206.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. 2002. Verbstellung und Verbstellungswandel in den romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 2002. ‘Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English’, in Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. (eds.), Studies in the history of English: A millennial perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 325–55.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
Lehmann, W. P. 1973. ‘A structural principle of language and its implications’, Language 49: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1991. ‘Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary German’, in Traugott, E. Closs and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslau, W. 1945. ‘The influence of Cushitic on the Semitic languages of Ethiopia: A problem of substratum’, Word 1: 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.) 1975. Word order and word order change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, C. 2009. ‘The development of negation in Arabic and Afro-Asiatic’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Meisel, J. M. 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
Meisel, J. M., Elsig, M. and Rinke, E. 2013. Language acqusition and change: A morphosyntactic perspective. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkster, H. 1987. ‘The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin’, in Harris, M. B. and Ramat, P. (eds.), The historical development of auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993a. ‘A formal account of grammaticalisation in the history of Romance futures’, Folia Linguistica Historica 13: 219–58.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, I. 2012. ‘A comparative study of word order in Old Romance’, Folia Linguistica 46: 553–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauli, V. 1958. The structural tendencies of language, vol. I: General tendencies. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Tauli, V. 1973. Standard Estonian grammar: Phonology, morphology, word-formation. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2008. ‘The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns’, in Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds.), Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. and Genee, I. 2002. ‘English do: On the convergence of languages and linguists’, English Language and Linguistics 6: 283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in medieval French: Verb-second and null subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. and Detges, U. 2008. ‘Syntactic change from within and from without syntax: A usage-based analysis’, in Detges, U. and Waltereit, R. (eds.), The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M.I. 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–195.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb-second. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. 2007. ‘Specifier-to-head reanalyses in the complementizer domain: Evidence from Welsh’, Transactions of the Philological Society 105: 432–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 1
- Cited by