Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T07:06:35.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical linguistics, language change and the history of French1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Rebecca Posner
Rebecca Posner
Affiliation:
St Hugh's College, Oxford OX2 6LE.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is a personal delineation of part of a methodology for the History of the French Language, aiming to combine the methodology of linguistics with that of history proper. Both traditional and modern methods of ‘historical linguistics’ fail to take account of a real time dimension, whereas ‘language history’ often resembles institutional, cultural and social history. We ask how we identify the ‘event’ and the ‘object’ of linguistic history, and how we distinguish variation, innovation, shift and change. We ask also what the linguist can contribute to the historian's reconstruction of the past.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 75 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Adams, M. (1987a). Old French and the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M. (1987b). Old French, null subjects and verb-second phenomena. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Adams, M. (1988). Les effets du verbe second en ancien et moyen français. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 7: 13–40.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language 49: 567–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. (1989). Understanding linguistic innovations. In Breivik, L. E. and Jahr, E. H. (eds.), Language Change. Contributions to the Study of its Causes. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardener, E. (1971). Social anthropology and the historicity of historical linguistics. In Ardener, E. (ed.) Social Anthropology and Language. London: Tavistock, pp. 209–241.Google Scholar
Beaune, C. (1985). Naissance de la nation française. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Braudel, F. (1969). Ecrits sur I'histoire. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Briggs, A. (1985). The Collected Essays of Asa Briggs, vol. 1: Words, Numbers, Places, People. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Burke, P. and Porter, R. (eds.) (1987). The Social History of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Camproux, C. (1968). Etude syntaxique des parlèrsgevaudanais. Montpellier: PUF.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. (1963). Nouveaux Regards sur la langue française. Paris: Editions sociales.Google Scholar
Corfield, P. J. (ed.) (1991). Language, History and Class. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dees, A. (1980). Atlas des formes et des constructions des chartes françaises du XIIIe siè;cle. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1993). English Historical Syntax. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Disterheft, D. (1990). The role of adaptive rules in historical linguistics. Diachronica, 7: 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, J. (1993). Sociolinguistic variation and the linguist. In Sanders, C. (ed.) French Today. Language in its Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eringa, S. (1924). La Proposition infinitive simple et subjective dans la prose française depuis Malherbe. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Finke, Annerose (1983). Untersuchen zu Formen und Funktionen der Satzfrage im Theater des 17. und 18 Jahrhunderts. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Green, J. N. and Ayres-Bennett, W. (eds.) (1990). Variation and Change in French. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (1969). Grammaire transformationnelle dufrançais. Lexique des constructions complétives. Paris: LADL.Google Scholar
Gross, M. (1975). Grammaire transformationnelle du français. Régimes des constructions complétives. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Haase, A. (1888). Französische Syntax des XVII. Jahrhunderts. Oppeln and Leipzig:Francke (trans. 1969 Syntaxe française du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Delagrave).Google Scholar
Hajek, J. (1993). Old French nasalization and universals of sound-change. Journal of FrenchLanguage Studies, 3: 145–164.Google Scholar
Harmer, L. (1979). Uncertainties in French Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoenigswald, H. M. and Wiener, L. F. (1987). Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. London: Pinter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huot, H. (1981). Constructions infinitives du français. Le subordonnant de. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds.) (1989). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, M.-O. and Martineau, F. (1992). The structure of infinitives. Probus, 4: 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. (1980). Strukturen der Frage im Französischen. Synchronische und diachronische Untersuchungen zur direkten Frage im Französischen des 15. Jahrhunderts (1450–1500). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 12: 349–371.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1990). Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Kok, A. de (1985). La Place du pronom personnel régime conjoint enfrançais. Une etude diachronique. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemhagen, G. (1979). La Concurrence entre I'infinitif et la subordonnée compléetive introduite par que en française contemporain. Uppsala: Academia Ubsaliensis.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to Set Parameters; Arguments from Linguistic Change Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P. M. (1979). On the definition of Vulgar Latin. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 80: 110–122.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (1993). French. From Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. (1986). On the origin of the Old French strong-weak possessive distinction. Transactions of the Philological Society, 1986: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailhac, J. P. (1989). Le Temps opératif en psychomécanique du langage. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Matoré, G. (1953). La Méthode en lexicologie. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic Variation and Change. On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (forthcoming). Quelques réflexions sur la formation des voyelles nasales en français. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C, Langlois, M.-C. and Varin, M.-E. (1990). Tensing of word-final [0] to [o] in French; the phonologization of a morphological rule. Romance Philology, 43: 507–528.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. and Ouellet, M. (1991). Les [ε] longs devant [s] en français: sources historiques et evolution. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique, 20: 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, E. (1982). Infinitival complements in Old French and diachronic change. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 12: 117–145.Google Scholar
Picard, M. (1992). Aspects synchroniques et diachroniques du tu interrogatif en québécois. Revue Qu´ebécoise de Linguistique, 21: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planhol, X. de (1988). Géographie historique de la France. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1969). Directions for historical linguistics. Romance Philology, 23: 143–153.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1973). Homonymy, polysemy and semantic change. Language Sciences 27: 1–8.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1985). Postverbal negation in non-standard French: a historical and comparative view. Romance Philology, 39: 170–197.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1988a). Linguistic variation, change and typology in Romance. In Albrecht, J., J., Lüdtke and Thun, H. (eds.) Energeia und Ergon. Sprachliche Variation–Sprachgeschichte–Sprachtypologie. Studia in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu, vol. 3. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 161–166.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1988b). Definiteness and the history of French possessives. French Studies, 42: 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. (1993a). Language conflict: language decline, death and survival. In Posner, R. and Green, J. N. (eds.) Trends in Romance Linguistics and Philology, vol. 5: Bilingualism and Language Conflict in Romance. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter, pp. 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. (1993b). Latin to Romance (again!): change or genesis? In van Marie, J. (ed.) Historical Linguistics 1991. Papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, R. (forthcoming a). Contact, social variants, parameter setting and pragmatic function: an example from the history of French syntax. (Paper to International Conference, Poznan, Poland, June 1991.) In Fisiak, J. (ed.) Language Contact and Linguistic Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (forthcoming b). Third-person subjects in French: a historical view. (Paper to Anglo-French colloquium, London 1993.) In Yaguello, M. (ed.) Subjecthood and Subjectivity Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (in preparation a). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (in preparation b). Linguistic Change in French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reenen, P. van (1992). Contractions of preposition and plural article without s (e.g. a+les to au) in Old French. A completely overlooked problem of paradigm formation with implications for the theory of language change. Vrije Universiteit Working Papers in Linguistics 40, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Rickard, P. (1982). Prier and its constructions from Old to early Modern French. VoxRomanica, 41: 133–157.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. and Roberts, I. (1989). Complex inversion in French. Probus, 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Y. and Vinet, M.-T. (1989). La Variation dialectale en grammaire universelle. Montreal: Presses Universitaires.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1993). Verbs and Diachronic Syntax. A Comparative History of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1982). Sociohistorical Linguistics: its Status and Methodology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothwell, W. (1993). From Latin to Anglo-French and Middle English: the role of the multilingual gloss. Modern Language Review, 88: 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schøler, L. (1984). La Déclinaison bicasuelle de I'ancien français. Son rôle dans la syntaxe de la phrase, les causes de sa disparition. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Schwegler, A. (1988). Word-order changes in predicate negation strategies in Romance languages. Diachronica, 5: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, M. (1991). The Sense of Change. Language as History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1977). Language change in childhood and history. In Macnamara, J. (ed.) Language Learning and Thought. New York: Academic Press, pp. 183–214.Google Scholar
Szamosi, Michael (1973). On the unity of subject raising. Chicago Linguistic Society, 9: 652–658.Google Scholar
Thurneysen, R. (1892) Die Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, 16: 219–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, B. (1988a). Null subjects and syntactic change in Medieval French. (PhD thesis, Cornell University.) Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Vance, B. (1988b). L'évolution de pro-drop en français médiéval. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 7: 85–109.Google Scholar
Walter, H. (1982). Enquête phonologigue et variétés régionales du français. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. and Herzog, M. I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (eds.) Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: Texas University Press, pp. 93–188.Google Scholar
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Zgusta, L. (1992). History and its multiple meaning. In Zgusta, L. (ed.) History Languages and Lexicographers. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar