Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T17:59:14.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. By Olga Fischer. (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xviii, 378. Paperback. £21.99. doi:10.1017/S1470542708000111

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Katerina Somers Wicka
Katerina Somers Wicka*
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
*
Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies, University of Georgia, 209 Joseph E. Brown Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA, [kswicka@uga.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
REVIEWS
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 379 - 388
Copyright
Society for Germanic Linguistics 2008

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

REFERENCES

Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D., 425–440. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to morphology. Probablistic linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, & Jannedy, Stefanie, 229–287. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, Don, & Skousen, Royal. 2005. Analogical modeling and morphological change: The case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9.333–357.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2000. Morphological change up close. Niemeyer: Tübingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, & Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003 [1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1981. The history of noun phrase movement. The logical problem of language acquisition, ed. by Baker, Carl L. & McCarthy, John, 86–119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1974. Remarks on analogical change. Historical linguistics, ed. by Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles, 257–275. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 19.682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, & Prince, Alan. 1994. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. The reality of linguistic rules, ed. by Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L., & Iverson, Gregory K., 353–388. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 2002. The neuroscience of language. On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar