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
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- Index
- References
6 - Restructuring
from Part I - Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
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
- 1 Grammaticalization
- 2 Degrammaticalization
- 3 Exaptation
- 4 Reanalysis
- 5 Analogy and Extension
- 6 Restructuring
- 7 Parameter Setting
- 8 Contact and Borrowing
- Part II Methods and Tools
- 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. 113 - 133Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aldridge, E. 2013. ‘Survey of Chinese historical syntax’, Language and Linguistics Compass 7(1): 39–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C. 1986. ‘Reconsidering the history of like’, Journal of Linguistics 22: 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. M. 1986. ‘A note on Old English impersonals’, Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 167–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bejar, S. 2002. ‘Movement, morphology and learnability’, in Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press, pp. 307–25.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. 1988. ‘Psych-verbs and theta theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3): 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, H. and Troberg, M. 2013. ‘Changes at the syntax-semantics interface: From Late Latin to Modern French’, paper presented at DiGS15, University of Ottawa. https://sites.google.com/site/heathersusanburnett.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. ‘Toward a cartography of subject positions’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2. Oxford University of Press, pp. 115–65.Google Scholar
Carlson, A. 1976. ‘A diachronic treatment of English quantifiers’, unpublished MA thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.) 2010. Mapping spatial PPs: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 6. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. 1990. ‘The OE impersonals revived’, in Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N. and Wright, S. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–40.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. 2003. ‘On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases’, MS, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Djamouri, R. and Paul, W. 2009. ‘Verb-to-preposition reanalysis in Chinese’, in Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford University Press, pp. 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elenbaas, M. 2014. ‘Directional out of in the history of English: Grammaticalization and reanalysis’, Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(2): 83–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. ‘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
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vols. 1–7. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. ‘Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax’, Foundations of Language 4: 30–57.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 57–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. 1974. ‘An explanation of word order change SVO > SOV’, Foundations of Language 12: 201–14.Google Scholar
Li, Y. H. A. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. (ed.) 2002. Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2001. ‘Formal syntax, diachronic Minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. 1973. ‘Serial verbs in transition’, Studies in African Linguistics 4: 269–96.Google Scholar
Lord, C. 1976. ‘Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa’, in Steever, S., Walker, C. and Mufwene, S. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 179–91.Google Scholar
Lord, C. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions (Typological Studies in Language no. 26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Shannessy, C. 2013. ‘The role of multiple sources in the formation of an innovative auxiliary category in Light Warlpiri, a new Australian mixed language’, Language 89: 328–53.Google Scholar
Peyraube, A. 1985. ‘Les structures en ‘ba’ en chinois medieval et moderne’, Cahiers de linguistique Asie Oriental 14: 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyraube, A. 1996. ‘Recent issues in Chinese historical syntax’, in Huang, C.-T. J. and Li, Y.-H. (eds.), New horizons in Chinese linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 161–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. and Huybregts, M. A. C. 2001. ‘Location and locality’, in van Oostendorp, M. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (eds.), Progress in grammar. Roccade: Amsterdam and Utrecht, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. and Roussou, A. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, C. 1996. Word-order change and grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2004. ‘Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.), Nordlyd 32: Special issue on Slavic prefixes. Tromsø: CASTL, pp. 205–53.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. and Kaufman, T. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Gaaf, W. 1904. The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1975. ‘An explanation of drift’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Word order and word order change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 269–305.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language, vols. 1–3b. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wang, L. 1958. Hanyu shi gao (zhong) [A draft history of Chinese (Part II)]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe.Google Scholar
Whitman, J. 2000. ‘Relabelling’, in Pintzuk, S., Toulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford University Press, pp. 220–38.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by