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 .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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.
Exploring the phenomenon of 'mixed categories', this book is the first in-depth study of the way in which languages can use a noun, as opposed to an adjective, to modify another noun. It investigates noun-adjective hybrids - adjectives and adjective-like attributive forms which have been derived from nouns and systematically retain certain nominal properties. These rarely-discussed types of mixed category raise a number of important theoretical questions about the nature of lexemic identity, the inflection-derivation divide, and more generally, the relationship between the structure of words and their phrasal syntax. The book proposes a new formal framework that models cross-linguistic and cross-constructional variation in noun modification constructions. The framework it offers enables readers to explicitly map word structure to syntactic structure, providing new insights into, and impacting upon, all current theoretical models of grammar.
Living languages constantly change, but though we have developed an understanding of actualisation – the way in which change spreads through a language (e.g. De Smet 2012) – and propagation – the way change spreads through a population (e.g. Labov 2001), the answer to the question of why change happens in the first place has proven elusive. As McMahon (1994: 225) puts it: ‘the actuation problem, sadly, will remain as mysterious as ever’ (cf. Walkden 2017).
The research presented below focuses on aspects of the contemporary forms and uses of whatever in Present-day English, along with some discussion of recent diachronic variation which has given rise to these contemporary forms and uses. The research is partly quantitative and partly qualitative in nature; the quantification of variants is an attempt to complement the work of Brinton (2017), whose research on whatever is primarily qualitative, and we extend her qualitative analysis by considering additional data from a web corpus.
If you ask me is used in Present-day English (PDE hereafter) as a modalised comment on the following or preceding clause, as in these examples by linguists on the American Dialect Society Listserve Archive
Impersonal constructions form one of the most extensively researched topics in English historical syntax, with dedicated publications ranging over a century (e.g. van der Gaaf 1904; Elmer 1981; Allen 1995; Möhlig-Falke 2012). These constructions are commonly distinguished by three morphosyntactic features: (i) a nominative subject is missing; (ii) what is commonly labelled as ‘Experiencer’ – the human argument involved in the action of the verb – bears objective case; and (iii) the verb is in the third-person singular form.
David Denison’s ‘minigraph’ contribution to volume IV of the Cambridge History of the English Language (Denison 1998, CHEL IV) is widely acknowledged as a landmark achievement in the study of late Modern English (lModE) syntax. Denison himself introduced it as a ‘provisional’ survey of relatively unexplored territory: ‘syntactic change in late Modern English is only just beginning to get its share of serious scholarly attention’ (1998: 92).
This chapter revisits my earlier work on to-infinitives (Los 1999, 2005) in the light of the new insights about the spread of complementation patterns provided by De Smet (2013) and Rudanko (2015). Their investigations into the spread of the gerund as a verb complement benefited from the fact that the gerund came into existence relatively recently, which made it possible not only to construct a scenario of how it spread through the system of verbal complementation, but also to date the various stages.